LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 
«*/ IBife^Tgf 

^UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.^ 



3k 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL 



IN THE f 



• 



/ 



IP.f.g§ 



PUBLISHED BY MINOEITY OP THE CHUEOH. 



x 



PORTLAND: 

PRINTED AT BROWN THURSTON'S STEAM PRINTING HOUSE. 

1861. 



* 






DECISION OF THE COUNCIL 



IN THE 



TRIAL OF EEV. W. P. MERRILL, 



PASTOR OF THE F. W. BAPTIST CHURCH, 



IN PORTLAND, 



WITH A STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A DE- 
CISION ; IN ANSWER TO A CALL FROM MEMBERS OF SAID 
CHURCH, AND OTHERS. 



• 



PORTLAND: 
PRINTED BY BROWN THURSTON. 

1861. 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL. 



CALL FOE THE COUNCIL, AND THEIR FORMER ACTION. 



To Samuel Small and others, of the Minority of the Free Will Baptist 
Church, Casco Street, Portland : 

Dear Brethren : — Your request for "a statement of facts and reasons 
for the decision to which " we arrived in the investigation of " charges pre- 
ferred by W. C. Barrows against Rev. Wm. P. Merrill," is received. 

Believing it to be our duty to comply with your request,, and feeling that 
the connection of our action with the interests of our denomination, as well 
as with the general interests of Zion, forbids our withholding from any well- 
disposed inquirer the reasons for the conclusions to which we arrived in the 
case referred to, we have concluded to comply with your request. 

To avoid any misunderstanding in regard to the position we recognize in 
this action, we take the liberty to insert and return to you the following copy 
of your request ; viz, : 

" Request of the minority of the F. W. Baptist Church of Casco St., Port- 
land, to the council called to investigate charges preferred by W. C. Bar- 
rows against Rev. Wm. P. Merrill. 

" Called, as you were, to a consideration of charges against Wm. P. Merrill, 
and on which you expressed an opinion, that the charges of ' Seduction and 
Adultery ' were sustained, we request you to furnish us and the public a 
statement of facts and reasons for the decision to which you arrived ; and 
such other information relative to said case as may have come to your knowl- 
edge since your decision. 

" We make this request from the fact, that W. P. Merrill and others have 
very generally stated that the decision announced in your report ' is contra- 
dictory,' — ' without sufficient evidence,' — ' not sustained by evidence,' — 
' without the least shadow of evidence,' — and animadverted upon, and com- 
plained of as ' an unrighteous judgment,' — ' a Christless decision.' 



4 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

" And to satisfy us and the public of the facts and merits of the case, and 
the grounds of your decision, we trust you will comply with this request at 
your earliest convenience. 

[Signed.] 

" SAMUEL SMALL, AMOS C. YOUNG, 

C. J. MORRIS, J. W. STEVENS, 

WM F. REMICK, RUFUS DEERING, 

W. C. BARROWS, JOSEPH W. MERRILL, 

G. A. MERRY, J. T. SMITH." 
B. C. MEGQUIER, 

The council have always held themselves ready to give the facts, and their 
reasons for coming to such conclusions as they did, when called upon by 
such as had a right to require it of them. 

Accordingly, at the suggestion of one, understood to be chairman of the 
Parish Committee, and others, measures were taken to present an explana- 
tion of our former action at the late session of the Cumberland Quarterly 
Meeting. In pursuance of this, two of our number attended, but were re- 
jected, being met by the declaration, that the Quarterly Meeting had no 
" foreign agents " — that they could " do their own business," and that when 
they wanted "assistance," they would cl call for it." We should have been 
gratified if we had not been called as " foreign agents ; " and, had it not been 
for the author of these aspersions, there would have been no necessity for 
our services. 

We would here remark, that the following is the action of a majority of 
the council ; and no one will be considered responsible for this but those 
whose names are hereafter subscribed. When the word " council," and the 
pronouns referring to the same, are used, they apply only as above — except 
so far as relates to the official action of the council up to the close of their 
labors on the 8th day of Dec, 1860. 

Perhaps no better course can be pursued to set this matter clearly before 
you, than to call your attention to the preliminary action of the church by 
appropriate selections from its records. 

Under date of Nov. 5, 1860, in said records, appears the following vote, as 
certified to by the church clerk ; viz. : 

" Voted, That the Committee on Discipline are hereby empowered to call a 
council to advise with them in relation to a difficulty now existing between 
Rev. W. P. Merrill and Bro. Barrows, provided that said committee deem it 
best." 

In accordance with the foregoing vote of the church, as we were informed, 
the Discipline Committee agreed upon a council, and notified the members 
agreed upon, by letter, as follows : 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 

il Portland, November 9, 1860. 
Rev. (here the name was inserted.) 

Dear Brother, — You have been selected by the F. W. Baptist Church in 
Portland (and the selection has been approved by the parties interested) as 
one of a council to assist the church in the investigation of charges of a very 
serious character preferred by Bro. W. C. Barrows against Rev. W. P. Merrill, 
Pastor. 

" The council is called for Monday, Nov. 19th, at 6 o'clock, P. M., and 
consists of the following persons ; viz., 0. B. Cheney, N. Brooks, J. Raymond, 
C. Quinnam, G. W. Bean, M. H. Tarbox, F. W. Straight. We have had much 
difficulty in selecting and agreeing upon a council, and there is much depend- 
ing upon your attendance. I enclose a card giving my address, and would be 
glad to hear from you by return mail, informing me whether you will be able 
to meet with us or not. 

[Signed.] Yours truly, C J. MORRIS." 

As Rev.. G. W. Bean declined, Rev. S. N. Tufts, who had been previously 
agreed upon as a substitute in case of a vacancy, was added to the council 
in his stead. 

Agreeably to the foregoing notice, the council met the Discipline Commit- 
tee of the church at the audience room of the Casco Street Church, on Mon- 
day, the 19th day of Nov., 1860. Rev. 0. B. Cheney having been agreed 
upon by the church committee as chairman, the council made choice of Rev. 
J. Raymond as their clerk. 

Announcement was then made to the church committee and the parties in- 
terested that the council were ready to proceed, upon which W. C. Barrows 
presented the following : 

'•' To Bev. Wm. P. Merrill,— 

The charges that I prefer against you, are as follows : 

That you are anti-christian in your habits and pursuits, and in your busi- 
ness transactions, and that you are a seducer and guilt) 1 " of seducing my 
wife, and that you are guilty of adultery, morally or criminally, or both ; 
and that you are guilty of forgery and of communicating the most vile false- 
hoods to me and many others against my wife, and offering to make oath to 
the same in order to effect a divorce between us. 

[Signed.] W. C. BARROWS. 

Portland, Nov. 2, 1860." 

After some altercation between the parties, in which some technical objec- 
tions were presented by Elder Merrill, which he subsequently waived, a rou- 
tine of testimony was presented to the council, occupying their time, and 
commanding their undivided attention, about twelve hours in each day, for 
more than ten days, to which may be added the time occupied in the argu- 
ments, one of which (Elder Merrill's) occupied seven and a half hours, and 



6 DECISION OP THE COUNCIL IN 

the time of consultation by the council, together with the time occupied in 
necessary travel, the whole making an aggregate of nearly three weeks. 

This great, and to some, perhaps, apparently unnecessary amount of time, 
was allowed by the council to the parties, because they claimed it as their 
right to be fully heard ; and, in one instance, the defendant refused to pro- 
ceed, unless he could have his own time and method of defense. 

On Thursday, Dec. 6, at 9 o'clock, P. M., the arguments were concluded, 
when Eld. Merrill presented to the council the following : 

" I desire, if it has not already been done, that the council submit to a 
council of physicians the letters for a decision upon the evidences of insan- 
ity. Also that judgment be rendered upon each separate charge. 
[Signed.] Truly yours, 

W. P. MERRILL." 

The " letters " referred to in the foregoing, seven in number, were present- 
ed to the council as " copies " of letters that Eld. Merrill said he had received 
from Mrs. E. Barrows, whom, it was alleged, he had seduced to the act of 
adultery. But a portion of these copies were alleged to be forgeries ; and 
a submission of such by the council, for the purpose suggested, must have 
been based upon the assumption of their genuineness, which had not been 
made sufficiently clear to the council, in their opinion, to justify such a course. 
The council further considered, that, if such action were desired by Elder 
Merrill for any other purpose, he might have submitted them himself, and 
introduced the opinion thus obtained, as evidence in the case. Hence the re- 
quest for a submission of the letters was not granted ; but the council agreed 
to report upon each charge, separately, as desired. 

Up to this time, it being 9 1-2 o'clock, P. M., Thursday, Dec. 6, the Dis- 
cipline Committee of the church had been in attendance, and had taken 
an active part. The council then adjourned to meet at 9 o'clock in the 
morning (Friday, Dec. 7), at which time they assembled for the purpose of 
reviewing the testimony, and for consultation. Their session continued, with 
no other intermission than the necessary time for meals, till 9 o'clock, Satur- 
day morning (Dec. 8). During the consultation, the following report was 
unanimously agreed upon ; viz. : 

" To the Free Will Baptist Church in Portland : 

The council selected by you to assist in the investigation of certain charges 
preferred by Bro. W. C. Barrows against Rev. Wm. P. Merrill, and dated 
Nov. 2, 1800, having attended to the duty assigned them, present the follow- 
ing 

REPORT. 

Dear Brethren: — It is well known to you, and a fact clearly apparent 
to every unprejudiced mind, that this council . have candidly and patiently 
assisted in a long and thorough investigation of the different charges and ac- 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 7 

cusations brought to their notice in this painful affair — that they have given 
the fullest liberty, both in presenting the accusations with the sustaining 
proof, and in the defense — that, if our stay with you has been protracted, 
it has been, both to comply with the wishes of those interested, and to secure 
such investigation, if possible, as- would develop all the facts, and lead to con- 
clusions satisfactory to our consciences, and acceptable to God. 

We hope it is not necessary to say to you, or to any one, who may be in- 
terested in the results of our prayerful and anxious deliberations, that we 
have labored to give due weight to each and every portion of testimony pre- 
sented to our consideration. 

The charges to which our attention has been directed, are as follows ; viz., 
{ Anti-christian in habits and pursuits and in business transactions, Seduc- 
tion, Adultery, Forgery, Falsehood, Intention of effecting a divorce between 
W. C. Barrows and wife.' 

The connection and similarity of the testimony presented, considered in 
relation to these charges, lead us to the conclusion, that, in the charges of 
1 Anti-christian in habits and pursuits, and in business transactions,' and also 
of ' Forgery, Falsehood, and Intention of effecting a divorce,' though there 
are circumstances, out of which strong suspicions may arise in many minds, 
yet the evidence is, in our opinion, insufficient to fix upon him the certainty 
of these charges. 

But, in the sadness of our hearts, we are compelled to say, that, in the 
charges of ' Seduction and Adultery,' the preponderance of evidence is 
strongly against him ; and, in our opinion, these two latter charges are sus- 
tained. 

Assuring you of our prayers, and commending you to God, in the fullest 
confidence that His grace will be sufficient in the darkest hour of peril, the 
foregoing is most respectfully and affectionately submitted in the bonds of 
our Eedeemer. 



[Signed.] 



Portland, Dec. 8, 1860. 



OREN B. CHENEY, 
JOHN RAYMOND, 
FREEBORN W. STRAIGHT, 
CONSTANT QUINNAM, 
NAHUM BROOKS, 
SAMUEL N. TUFTS, 
MOSES H. TARBOX, 



Council. 



Immediately after the signing of this report, the council notified the officers 
of the Discipline Committee that the report was ready, and requested them 
to meet the council to receive it. But, as it was past 11 o'clock, A. M., on 
Saturday, and the council were under the necessity of leaving in about two 
hours by railroad, giving no time to call the church together, or even to ob- 
tain a full board of the Discipline Committee, the report was sealed, and an 
indorsement made upon the envelop by the council, requesting the committee 



8 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

to open it in full board, upon which the council forthwith adjourned, under 
the necessity of leaving to meet their appointments on the following day. 

We learn from the records, that the foregoing report was read in a meeting 
of the church, held on the 12th day of Dec, when the following action was 
taken ; viz. : 

" Voted, That that part of the report of the last mentioned council, which 
does not criminate Rev. W. P. Merrill, be accepted." 

" Voted, That that part of the report, which does criminate Rev. W. P. 
Merrill, be rejected." 

" Voted, To accept the report of the first council." 

" Voted, That this church recommend to the Parish to employ Rev. W. P. 
Merrill for the ensuing year." 

" Voted, To reconsider the vote whereby we accepted the resignation of 
Rev. W. P. Merrill." 

In the church record, under date of Jan. 7, 1861, is found the following : 

" Voted,. That the following language, being a part of the report of the 
council called by the church, be expunged from the records ; viz., ' Though 
there are circumstances out of which strong suspicions may arise in many 
minds,' — and, ' But in the sadness of our hearts, we are compelled to say, 
that, in the charges of Seduction and Adultery, the preponderance of evi- 
dence is strongly against him, and, in our opinion, these two latter charges 
are sustained.' " 

This action of the church was not unanimous, and a protest was drawn 
and signed by the minority, as follows : — 

" The undersigned, members of the First Freewill Baptist Church in 
Portland, object to the action of the majority of said church in relation to 
the decision of the late council, mutually called to decide in the case of the 
Rev. Wm. P. Merrill, for the following reasons ; viz. : — 

First. Because said council, after a full hearing of the whole matter, de- 
cided against said Merrill. 

Second. Because said council was composed of ministers of sound, dis- 
criminating minds, without prejudice for or against either of the parties, 
and therefore, in our opinion, much better prepared to make a just and 
righteous decision than the majority of the church (saying nothing about 
prejudice), who never investigated the subject, possibly could be. 

Thirdly. Because said action of the majority of said church, was hasty; 
without reflection, without evidence, except hearsay, and with minds unduly 
excited, as we think. 

We can assure our brethren that the foregoing objections are made in the 
best of feeling, hoping and praying that our Heavenly Father will direct us 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 



9 



all, and enable us to act in all we do with reference to that day when the se- 
crets of all hearts shall be made manifest. 
Portland, Dec. 31, 1860. 
[Signed.] 

SAMUEL SMALL, G. A. MERRY, 

RUFUS DEERING, JOSEPH SYMONDS, 

W. C. BARROWS, ARCHIBALD SMITH, 

WM. F. REMICK, AMOS C. YOUNG, 

F. H. JORDAN, JOSEPH W. MERRILL." 

C. J. MORRIS, 

The foregoing was presented to the church, and disposed of by voting 
first to hear it read. Then " a motion was made and seconded to have it 
recorded." "Lost." "It was then voted not to have it recorded." 

" Voted, That it be placed on file." 

The minority of the church then prepared an appeal to the Quarterly 
Meeting, m the following language ; viz. : — 

" The undersigned, who were (and of whom a portion still are) members of 
the Freewill Baptist Church in Portland, would respectfully represent to the 
Quarterly Meeting that the late action of the church in voting to continue 
Wm. P . [.Merrill in the pastoral office, after a mutually called council had 
unanimously found him guilty of gross immoralities, has been a cause of 
grief to us ; is a subversion of Christian discipline ; is contrary to the usages 
of all evangelical denominations ; and, in our opinion, is calculated to bring 
a deep wound upon the cause of Christ; — and for the action which they have 
taken in this case, we would present the church to the Quarterly Meeting 
Conference as a subject of labor and discipline. 

To the Cumberland Quarterly Meeting Conference to be held at Gorham 
January 30th and 31st, 1861. 



[Signed.] 

SAMUEL SMALL, 
JOSEPH SYMONDS, 
JAMES W. STEVENS, 
G. A. MERRY, 
0. J. MORRIS, 
ARCHIBALD SMITH, 
B. C. MEGQUIER, 
AMOS C. YOUNG, 
S. H. GILKEY, 



JOSEPH W. MERRILL, 
WM. F. REMICK, 
W. C. BARROWS, 
J. S. SMITH, 
RUFUS DEERING, 
JASON FULLER, 
T. C. LEWIS, 
L. H. SHAW, 
GEO. W. RICH. 



ISABELLA SYMONDS, 
SARAH W. MERRY, 
CLARISSA A. MORRIS, 



ABBY F. PHINNEY, 
JANE STEVENS, 
EMILY E, DEERING, 



10 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

MARY E. SMITH, DEBORAH E. DEERING, 

JANE M. FULLER, MATILDA B. MERRILL, 

MARY SMITH, JANE F. STEVENS, 

BETSEY CHASE, HARRIET S. BURNHAM, 

MARY F. YOUNG, MARY REMICK." 

The foregoing was presented in the Quarterly Meeting Conference, Janu- 
ary 30th, 1861, and referred to the business committee, without reading. — 
The business committee subsequently reported that it might be read before 
the Conference in secret session, when it was voted to accept and adopt the 
report, and to go immediately into secret session for the aforesaid purpose, — 
said session to be composed of delegates from the churches only. This vote 
was construed by the Conference to exclude the Clerk, because he was not a 
delegate. The records of the secret session as certified by the Clerk pro 
tern., read as follows ; viz. : — 

" Voted, That the report of the minority of the church at Portland be 
read. 

Heard reading of the report. 

Voted, That the report of the minority of the church at Portland be re- 
committed to them. 

Voted, That a council of seven be raised to investigate the case of Rev. 
Wm. P. Merrill. 

Voted, That a committee of three be raised by the chair to nominate that 
council. 
Committee, Bros. J. Johnson, H. Crockett, H. Bryant. 

Voted, To adjourn, to meet at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

[Signed.] J. A. FENDERSON, Cleric pro tern." 

We forbear any comment upon the action of the Quarterly Meeting, un- 
less subsequent developments should render it necessary. 

Prior to the action of the Quarterly Meeting, however, certain correspond- 
ence was held with members of the council, of which you are probably 
aware, and which is so essential to a full understanding of the present condi- 
tion of the case, that a portion of the same is herewith submitted, as fol- 
lows : — 

LETTER OF W. P. MERRILL. 

"Portland, Dec. 18th, 1860. 

Rev. JonN Raymond, Sir: — 

I have waited long enough, I am thinking, for those letters, and now I 
wish you to forward them as soon as possible. I want also the original letter 
of Gustavus Smith, and a copy of the letter presented by Mrs. Barrows, 



THE TRIAL OF EEV. WM. P. MEBBILL. 11 

purporting to be in substance what she said was contained in the first two 
letters. I want the original statements from Miss Thompson, the Curtis 
family, Mr. Foss, and the statements about Mrs. George, signed by James 
Barnard, Jacob Currier, and Ezra Flanders, of Amesbury, and Salisbury, 
Mass. 

I have no words to express my feelings, in view of the cruelty of the San- 
hedrim who adjudged me to death morally, and without evidence, save the 
testimony of a perjured and licentious woman; but I beg of you to remem- 
ber the words of the Savior,—" Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of 
the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
Respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] WM. P. MERRILL." 

REPLY TO THE FOREGOING. 

" Bowdoinham, Dec. 24th, 1860. 

Rev. William P. Merrill, — 

Sir : — Your admonition of the 18th inst. came safely to hand, and my 
only apology for not complying with your request at an earlier day, is that 
my own business claimed all my time, and I did not feel disposed to hire 
them copied, as that would be another draft upon my purse, which would 
not be remunerated. 

You was apprised at an early stage of the proceedings, that all papers put 
into the case as evidence, would be retained by the council,- thus giving you 
ample time to procure all such copies as you might need. 'i 

You ask me for "a copy of the letter presented by Mrs. Barrows, purport- 
ing to be, in substance, what she said was contained in the first two letters." 
I have no such letter. I have one put in by Mrs. Barrows, purporting to be 
the substance of what she said she had written to you at different times, and 
which she said did not appear in her letters as you presented them ; but 
she did not state that it was all contained in the first two letters she sent 
you. She said she thought she must have sent you more letters than you 
brought forward. She said a part of the statements she presented (a copy 
of which is herewith transmitted to you) was contained in the first two let- 
ters, and she thought there were other letters, which you kept back. 

You say you " have no words to express your feelings, in view of the cru- 
elty of the Sanhedrim," etc. Here we have another specimen of the spirit 
manifested by you, throughout. It does not appear to me much like the 
spirit of an innocent man. But you are at liberty to use such language 
about the council as you choose, and to call to your assistance such subter- 
fuges as you may think will answer your purpose, remembering that a resort 
to anything below the dignity «,nd purity of that calling which you claim 
to follow, will have its legitimate effect upon the minds of all such as will give 
it due weight, aside from any influence of selfishness or prejudice. The 
truth may be concealed for the present, but it can be of but very little ben- 



12 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

efit to you or me, comparatively, to screen ourselves from the reproach of 
men, if Ave stand condemned in the sight of God ; for time's rapid march will 
soon bring us into the presence of the Eternal Judge, where the secret things 
of our lives, if unrepented of, will he brought to light, to crush us under an 
awful weight of guilt and eternal condemnation. 

As one of the council that you are pleased to dignify with the name of 
Sanhedrim, I may have judged you wrongfully ; and, could I feel that such 
is the case, I should be a thousand times more willing to retrace, than I was 
to condemn you. 

For it is well known to Him before whom all my motives in this affair, as 
well as in every other, are clearly portrayed, that nothing prompted me to 
the action taken, but a firm conviction of your guilt, and a sense of duty to 
God and His cause, which I dared not resist. To my understanding, there is 
strong evidence against you in the very matter you introduce for your de- 
fense. In my judgment, you have pursued to this very hour a wrong and 
injudicious course for an innocent man. I believe the Lord would have guid- 
ed an innocent man into a course that would have shown him to be more 
under the influence of the spirit of Christ than you have been. 

May God forgive me if I have judged you wrongfully. It is not because 
I am without feelings of deep sympathy for you and your family, that I 
thus address you. Neither is it from a spirit of retaliation or revenge ; for I 
pity you and your afflicted wife, and I hope God will grant her grace in this 
hour of her need, and lead you to repentance, if you are guilty before Him. 

You can but be aware that the course you take will compel the council to 
let the public understand their position, by a full exposition of the evidence 
as it came before them ;" a course which I never would have consented to 
but as a matter of self-defense, and to disabuse the public mind. You will 
understand the council are not responsible for this communication ; it is on 
my own responsibility solely, and I am aware that I must answer for it all to 
my great Master in the great and terrible day of the Lord. 

From your well-wisher, in much sorrow of heart. 

[Signed.] J. RAYMOND. 

P. S. I send you the seven letters put into our hands; also the G. 
Smith letter ; a copy of Mrs. B.'s statements ; the testimony of Miss Thomp- 
son, and of the Curtis family; of B. Foss, of Barnard, et als., as you de- 
sired. The same will be conveyed to you by express. J. R." 

W. P. MERRILL TO J. RAYMOND. 

"Portland, Dec. 27th, 1860. 

Rev. J. Raymond : 

Yours is received, and you will allow me a word in reply. In my allusion 
to the " Sanhedrim " you seem to find " another specimen of the spirit man- 
ifested throughout." You suggest it is not " the spirit of an innocent man." 
You are a wonderful man to discover in these terms anything "beneath the 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 13 

dignity of a minister." The word " cruel " is it not a vulgar term and does 
it not cause you to blush to use it 1 

"Sanhedrim" hits you more directly, and that bites and is a low term, of 
course, because it bites. Well, the ancient Sanhedrim was an honorable 
body of high Ecclesiastical functionaries, who were made up of Princes, 
Priests, and heads of tribes for whose wisdom you should feel a veneration 
and compared with whom a fisherman down east might feel honored, and 
the councils of which might if you had considered them rendered some aid, 
and saved you from some contradictions and reflections which your decision 
presents and awakens. But even this August body submitted their judg- 
ment to the people for ratification sometimes without feeling it an insult to 
their dignity. This right of appeal, so precious, is an affliction to the coun- 
cil, it seems, in this case. But it so happens to be a part of our policy. Has 
it come to this, that a council feels that it can't live unless a dictatorial power 
be conceded instead of an advisory power 1 You now seem to think our 
course here necessitates you to publish the trial or testimony in self-defence. 
Did you think your decision was irrevocable, and the church and myself, 
contrary to our rights and also to our consciences, must bow down and give up 
our convictions 1 If so you have both mistaken your calling in this case 
and the men with whom you have to do as also their rights. We have done 
no more than we have a right to do and shall maintain. We wish you to un- 
derstand after you had cleared your own consciences in endeavoring as you 
did without what appeared evidence to us we must clear our consciences by 
doing what seemed to us duty as accountable creatures to God although we 
differ from you. It is for you to show we have not this right and also how 
the exercise of this right becomes an insult to such an august body. When 
on the decision which is an anomaly among all the decisions ever rendered 
we as a church in acquitting upon the charges of Anti-christian Forgery 
Falsehoods etc were driven for consistency's sake if nothing more to acquit 
on the main charge or admit a man can be a seducer and adulterer and not 
destroy his veracity and christian character which is too absurd for us how- 
ever consistent it might be with your theology. Now for the threat of pub- 
lication permit me — and don't take it as an insult — to say that the first 
criminating paragraph from your pen or any member of the council in print 
will demand and shall receive legal attention. Your course has not been ani- 
madverted upon in print by any of us and you cannot hide under pretense 
of a necessity. Such publication would not in a legal tribunal be a privi- 
leged question or act but would be held as evidence of malice. This is not 
without council and if you choose to run the risk then take the responsibility 
but remember this notice as a friendly word to keep you out of trouble. One 
word more and I am done. Yojtr pretended pity comes too late to carry evi- 
dence of genuiness. Does not the scripture make it your duty if a brother 
err (and you say you think I am a guilty man) to try "to restore such an 
one in the spirit of meekness." You had no tear to shed with me or my 



14 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

family not one word of admonition not even daring like a man conscious of 
having done his duty to look me in the face but left the city without 
one word of warning or exhortation but members of the council could 
find time to chat with that wicked woman and gaze on her and listen 
to her lies about me.. No no dont insult me now after you have adjudged 
me to death morally by professions of sympathy. That is too bad and rights 
wrongs no more than declaring (after the Master was crucified wen earth 
groaned) " Truly this was the son of God." There was no atonement in such 
a confession — as it was out of time. 

Ponder well this communication it is all for your meditation and proffit and 
in the mean time I hope God will give me grace to endure and the council 
grace to repent of their erroneous judgment. 

Your opinion that an innocent cant be severe leads me to ask you if you 
ever read these saying rendered in Matt, xxiii. 13 — until Jesus concludes 
with these withering words — " Ye serpents ! ye generation of vipers ! Mow can ye 
escape the damnation of hell" or have you considered Paul Acts xiii. 10 — Then 
saul (who is called Paul) filled with the holy ghost set his ej^es on him and said 
full of all subtlety and all mischief Thou child of the devil — Thou enemy of 
all righteousness" Yet on your hypothesis you would declare neither Paul or 
the Lord Jesus innocent because they used severe words not remembering 
that conscious innocense breathes strongly always against sin and wicked 
intentions. It was for conscience sake — so called and the churches' sake and our 
religions sake — the Pharisees scribes and chief priests put the blessed Master to 
death yet it argues nothing in their favor but contrarywise. When con- 
science is used as a cloak and for a pretence long prayers are offered more 
and more deeply is to be deplored that state of mind that avails itself of 
heavenly living to serve such wicked purposes. 

The day is not far distant when the folly and cruelty of your judgment 
will appear. Notwithstanding all this, and all I suffer, if I could be per- 
suaded no intention of wrong existed I could freely forgive. But when men 
seem determined to credit a notorious woman without a corroborating testi- 
mony before a brother in the ministry can be believed with such strong tes- 
timony as was adduced on this trial it omens ill of the heart that can thus 
judge. It cant be other than an intention or prejudice shutting the mind 
against light or great ignorance of the wiles of Satan to destroy God's min- 
isters. And when a man says that copies of letters have no weight with him 
even though admitted by enemies to be true copies and testified to by our 
most truthful ministers such a man is not fit to set in judgment among in- 
telligent men on any matter. 

I now leave you with these thoughts for the present praying God to forgive 
if ought but truth that will stand in the day that shall reveal the secrets of 
men's heart's has been uttered. 

May God in mercy show you the truth both in relation to yourself and me. 
Respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] WM. P. MERRILL." 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 15 

REPLY TO THE FOREGOING. 

" Bowdoinham, Jan. 25, 1861. 

Rev. Wm. P. Merrill, — 

Yours of the 27th ult. came duly to hand, but a pressure of other matters 
has prevented my giving it an earlier notice. In fact, I do not deem it wor- 
thy of notice except in a few particulars. You are welcome to all the bene- 
fit you may derive from the false parade you make about " Sanhedrim," and 
to the benefit of your low fling about a " fisherman down East," together 
with the rest of your communication belonging to the same category, as the 
fallacy and obloquy of it are too apparent to need reply. 

I read your communication carefully, and then turning to the 26th chapter 
of the Book of Proverbs, I read the 4th and 5th verses to see if I could learn 
my duty from the counsel of the wise Teacher, but I still remained in doubt 
which rule to apply in this case. I have, at length, concluded, for my own 
good, to adopt the course recommended in the 4th verse for the present. In 
regard to our decision's being " an anomaly," &c, you will excuse me for 
briefly passing that at present, as it will receive attention in a review of our 
report at a future time. But permit me to suggest, that, when you shall 
give.your attention to the difference between " Anti-christian" and TJn-chris- 
tian, taking into account the fact, that one or two instances of misconduct 
will not constitute " habits and pursuits," you may discover some blunders 
in others besides the council. I assure you the criticisms on our report will 
be set right before the public in due time. 

As it regards our leaving " the city without one word of warning or ex- 
hortation," you are aware, that it would have been improper to divulge to 
you the substance of our report before it was opened in the committee of 
the church, and the council were under the necessity of leaving before that 
conld be done. If I have insulted you by professions of sympathy, I am 
heartily sorry, and hope to be forgiven ; for, although I have sympathy for 
the erring, yet I have none for the errors they commit, especially, when they 
are persistently sustained, and become flagrant by additional crimes. 

You have made a number of quotations from the Scriptures, to which I 
shall reply by citing you to the following passages, viz : 1 Cor. iv. 12 ; 1 
Peter ii. 23 ; 1 Cor. vi. 10 ; Gal. v. 22, 23 ; Eph. iv. 1, 2 ; Titus iii. 2 ; Eph.. 
iv. 29 ; 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; 1 Peter 1. 15 ; 1 Cor. v. 11 ; 2 Peter ii. 11 ; Jude 9 ; 
1 Peter iii. 9; Matt. xv. 18, 19; Matt.xii. 34—37. 

A serious objection to your hypothesis, in my mind, exists in the fact, that 
you assume equality with Christ and Paul, which looks to me like presump- 
tuous arrogance. This accounts for your clamor against such as doubt your 
innocence. As to that portion of your communication that refers to the 
" folly and cruelty" of our judgment, I pass it for the present, as that mat- 
ter will be discussed at another time ; but I must confess myself at a loss to 
determine what you mean by the following language; viz., "And when a 



16 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

man says that copies of letters have no weight with, him" &c. So far as I am 
concerned I disclaim any such language. I did say, in substance, that 
copies of papers did not have the weight in my mind, in many instances, that 
the original would have ; and if that renders me unfit to have a place "among 
intelligent men," I will seek a position where that sentiment will he accept- 
able and approved. It is a doctrine our courts of justice have always tol- 
erated, and I am not ashamed to identify myself with it, especially in cases 
where the copies are strenuously opposed, and overhung with mystery and 
suspicion. 

When I took my seat in that council, my impressions were favorable to 
you rather than otherwise ; but I found it impossible to retain that view 
without doing violence to my conscience, and shutting my mind against the 
testimony, both direct and circumstantial. 

And now, let me say, I shall not continue a personal controversy with 
you. You will soon have an opportunity of perusing my views of the affair 
at greater length, when I shall leave it for the decision of the Great Day. 

Respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] J. RAYMOND.-' 

LETTER FROM BUZZELL TO CHENEY. 

"Portland, Dec. 20, I860. 
Rev. 0. B. Cheney, — 

Will you do me the favor of sending to me a synopsis of the evidence upon 
which Rev. Wm. P. Merrill was convicted of seduction and adultery. 

Against my own wishes I have been placed under circumstances which 
render it necessary for me to make this request, and by complying you will 
oblige a well-wisher to the cause of Christianity. 
Yours truly, 
[Signed.] JOHN BUZZELL, 

Box 143. No. 67 Pleasant St., Portland." 

CHENEY'S REPLY TO BUZZELL. 

" Lewiston, Dec. 29th, 1860. 

Dear Sir, — 

Your letter is received, and you will permit me to say that I am not ap- 
prised of the "circumstances" to which you refer. 

The council will, undoubtedly, be expected to act in accordance with the 
usages of the denomination of which they are members and ministers ; and, 
as a member of the council, I do not feel authorized to send you " a synop- 
sis of the evidence, upon which Rev. Wni. P. Merrill was convicted of se- 
duction and adultery." 

I will say, however, that being sincerely with yourself, " a well-wisher to 
the cause of Christianity," I am ready to meet our report before an intelligent 



THE TRIAL OP REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 17 

public; and. meeting it there, I may wish to give more than a mere 
<£ synopsis." I have signed the report for no other reason than because, if I« 
had not signed it, I should have done violence to my "conscience;" and, of 
course, I am ready to meet it before God and man. 

I am very respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] 0. B. CHENEY." 

" John Buz zell, M. D. > 
67 Pleasant St., Portland." ] 

LETTER FROM PECK TO CHENEY. 

"Portland, Dec. 26th, 1860. 
Rev. 0. B. Cheney, 

Bear Sir, — I have thought of writing you for some days in regard to af- 
fairs in the Free Will Baptist Church and Society here, but more especially 
in regard to the manner of treatment which you have seen fit to manifest to- 
wards this Church! It is very surprising that you should leave the people 
here without one shred of testimony upon which you based your very novel 
and laconic report that Mr. Merrill is guilty of the crime of Seduction and 
Adultery. It seems to me that so grave charges as these against a minister 
of religion, should be backed by some explicit and direct evidence which the 
council must have had or if they had no such testimony they should never 
have presented such a conclusion. On the contrary you have requested the 
Church to act upon your mere unsupported assertion, without a word of 
proof, such as convinced your own minds. 

In the state in which this church now is with the strong attachment which 
a very large number of them have for Mr. Merrill they would not as you 
must have seen vote against him unless you gave them strong proofs of his 
guilt. You gave them no word of testimony. You simply assert that the 
preponderance of the evidence is conclusive of his crime. This was your fa- 
tal blunder and a blunder is sometimes worse than a sin. 

It is your duty, if you believe Mr. Merrill to be guilty to lay before this 
church and society the evidences of his guilt. Anything less than this, is 
culpable negligence on your part. You will bear in mind I do not say that 
he is not guilty, and that your report in its conclusion is not correct ; but 
had I been a member of the church, and knowing no more of the testimony 
than I now know — and many members of the church are as ignorant as my- 
self — I would not, because I could not, consistently have voted to condemn 
him. 

It is a matter of very little interest to me personally or otherwise, what 
becomes of the Free Will Baptist interests in this town, or elsewhere, as I am 
not now a member and with my present views and notions of churches and 
of principles and doctrines never shall be again ; still, on account of my for- 
mer association with this church and because of the general anti-slavery 

2 



18 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

character of the denomination I prefer to sustain so far as I have means to 
do it the outward interests of the denomination. 

Those of you however who desire to sustain the cause in this town as an 
outpost of your denomination should act promptly, truthfully and independ- 
ently, and you can't act too quick. 

The church almost unanimously have sustained Mr. Merrill and have sig- 
nified to the Parish their wish to have him for their pastor the coming year 
but the Parish have laid the matter on the table till the 1st Monday in Feb- 
ruary. 

This will give time for your council to meet the church and the Q. Meet- 
ing and I trust that you will do it in a christian, manly above-board way and 
if you have proofs of his guilt give those evidences to the church and to the 
world. The interests of public morals of your own cause in this town re- 
quire it. Yours truly 

[Signed.] . B. D, PECK." 

CHENEY'S EEPLY. 

" Lewiston, Dec. 29, 1860. 
Dear Sir, — 

I acknowledge the receipt of your letter in which you have seen fit to re- 
flect upon the council late sitting in Portland on charges against Rev. TV. 
P. Merrill. In reply I have^ to say, that I presume the council understand 
their duties and will discharge them — their rights, and will maintain them. 
As a member of the council, I am ready at the proper time to meet the re- 
port at the bar of public opinion, and at that Great Bar before which I must 
sooner or later appear. 

Respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] 0. B. CHENEY." 

" B. D. Peck, Esq." 

PECK TO CHENEY. 

"Portland, Jan. 2nd, 1861. 
Ret. 0. B. Cheney, 

Bear Sir, — Your note of Dec. 29th, came to hand by due course of mail. 
It is what I expected considering the source from which it emanated, the 
very quintessence of bigotry and priestly cant. You say that you " presume 
the council understand their duty and will discharge it." All I have to say 
is, that the council have not discharged their duty. The report is the con- 
summation of stupidity and ignorance. If they think they have discharged 
their dut\ , they have shown simply that they are destitute of the first requis- 
ite needed in the important trust committed to their hands. You were called 
to aid the church in ascertaining whether a Bro. minister charged with the 
grarest crimes was guilty or not. You sat three mortal weeks in listening 






THE TRIAL OF REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 19 

to the disgusting details of stuff and nonsense a large part of which was irrel- 
evant and then decided that Mr. Merrill is guilty of a crime which will send 
him to the State Prison, while you give to the church not one word of the 
testimony or evidence which convinced your own minds — thus you ask sev- 
en-eighths of the church and society to decide that their pastor, in whom 
they have implicitly trusted is guilty of a flagrant crime upon your mere un- 
supported assertion. Truly, your wisdom is profound, and must challenge the 
admiration of the world ! 

You appeal to the har of public opinion to vindicate your conduct in the 
premises. This is well, to that tribunal we will go, not merely to decide Mr. 
Merrill's guilt but as to whether the council did its duty, for this alone is the 
question I make with you. 

If you think by priestly assumption and arrogance to settle a question of 
this nature, you are mistaken, that is all. This is the nineteenth century and 
not the middle ages when priestly power dominated. We want something 
more than mere assertion to believe one, even, of your brothers guilty of a 
great crime. If you think assertion will answer for argument reason and 
evidence you will soon find your mistake. 

Respectfully yours, 
[Signed.] , B. D, PECK." 

REPLY. 

" Lewiston, Jan. 17th, 1861. 
B. D. Peck, Esq.,— 

Bear Sir ; — Your second letter, reflecting a second time on the council, 
was received the day of its date. Other duties, and especially, the answer- 
ing of many letters, have prevented an earlier reply. 

I still say to you, most respectfully, that, as a member of the council, I 
shall endeavor in the case at issue, to discharge faithfully my duties, so far 
as I understand them ; not forgetting, I trust, that by the usages of every 
Christian sect, and my own in particular, I have certain rights, which a 
proper respect for myself, if for no other reason, requires that I should main- 
tain. 

You will pardon me if I decline to notice many terms in your letters which 
I consider exceptionable. Once you would not have addressed me in the 
manner you have chosen; and I can only say, " that present days were as 
past ones." But this is a changing world, and the best we can do is to earn- 
estly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, to for- 
give as we hope to be forgiven ; and to look to the future, — to the world be- 
yond this ' vale of tears,' for the beginning of a higher and more precious life. 

You will allow me to say, that inasmuch as you are not a member of the 
Portland church, I do not acknowledge your right to call the council in 
question ; and much less, in the way you have addressed me. But I waive 
all objections, and send you a fuller reply than I otherwise should. 



20 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

Very reluctantly I went to Portland, and sat on a regularly constituted 
ecclesiastical council. We did sit the greater part of " three mortal weeks," 
but we are not responsible for the length of time consumed, as we are pre- 
pared to show, if necessary. It was ours to sit and hear, and decide impar- 
tially, and we endeavored to do so. 

What are certain facts in the case 1 The council considered the question 
of basing their report on portions of the testimony, at least. But it was 
now Saturday morning, of the third week. We had labored day and night ; 
we were exhausted, and well nigh sick ; we called up the usage in such 
cases, of other Christian denominations, as well as our own, and came to the 
conclusion, that even if we had the time and strength then to prepare such a 
report, it would be better for the accused, better for the church, and better 
for the cause of Christ at large, that it should not appear. 

We felt that the sad developments made should be confined to as narrow 
limits as possible ; that if the accused would, on the decision of the council, 
leave the ministry for some other calling, the more quiet things could bo kept, 
the better ; and the sooner the whole matter died, the better. 

We had no desire to drag Mr. M.,, to the grief of his family and friends, 
unnecessarily before the public. If we have erred (and I do not say we 
have not), we have this consciousness, that our error consisted in dealing 
with Mr. M. as easily as we could under such sad circumstances. 

I dared not do otherwise than be true to my honest convictions ; but God 
knows that I would not purposely, add a sorrow to any human heart. And 
here let me say, that I have not a doubt, but that if we had accompanied our 
report with the testimony, it would have been said by some, that our course 
was unprecedented, and^that we should have been blamed even more than 
we now are. It would have been said that we had manifested a desire to 
give the affair publicity, when such would not have been the fact. 

This is jone of those cases, as I think you will readily admit, where those 
who sit as adjudicators are to be blamed in any event. " It must needs be 
that offenses come," and the only course left for them to pursue, is to do what 
they believe to be just and right, considering all the circumstances, leaving 
the whole to be reviewed at that tribunal which is higher than any earthly 
court. The council made up their report and left Portland, honestly think- 
ing, that if the church, through their discipline committee, who were present 
through the trial, as the representatives of the church, desired anything ad- 
ditional, it was their duty to call for it. But what is their reported action 1 
They at once rejected our report : they did not wait to consult the council further, if 
they were in the dark as to any matter. I am slow to believe that Mr. Merrill 
did not understand the duty of the church in this particular, even if the 
church did not understand their own duty. You intimate that our " blunder 
is worse than a sin ;" but I ask you in all candor, if here is not a second 
" blunder," and one, too, not lying at our door. I confess I cannot view it 
otherwise. You must be aware that the motives of the council have been im- 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 21 

peached ; or in other words, that certain reports are in circulation in the 
community of Portland and elsewhere, that the council were improperly in- 
fluenced in giving their decision. Well, I am willing it should go if need be, 
that I have erred ; that I have been misguided ; or, if you prefer, that I 
have " blundered ;" but no man (I have no allusion to you here) or number 
of men, must say that I have acted from dishonorable motives, only as he 
says it to meet it before Him who knows the hearts of all men. 

I believe Mr. Merrill guilty, and I must say so at any sacrifice. I pity him 
from my very soul, that he has so fallen. I pity his family and friends. " 
that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might 
weep for them by day and by night." There is one who knows I am sincere 
in this, however I may be judged. But what can I do 1 Would that I could 
undo what I believe has been done! A more joyful heart would not be 
found than mine. I now think Mr. Merrill guilty, but let me be convinced 
that I have come to a wrong conclusion, and that he is innocent, and I will, 
like a mau, confess my mistake to him and to the world. 

But until then, I must stand where I am, though the heavens fall. This 
life is to me of but very little consequence ; but conscience and the fear of 
God are everything. I haye had warm friends in the Portland church. I 
understand now how they feel toward me ; and all I can say is that I must 
pray for and bear with them, " biding my time." I do not doubt the honesty 
of most, perhaps I may say of all the members of the church, but I do think 
they have been led, as we are all liable to be, astray ; and I am confident 
they will yet see it so. I do not believe they would purposely : ' cover up in- 
iquity," any more than I think I would ; but I believe iniquity is covered up, 
notwithstanding. 

In former years, you and myself were united in our faith in the efficacy of 
prayer. What your views now are, I do not know. Mine are unchanged ; 
and let me say, that at the throne of grace I do not forget Zion in her tried 
state in Portland. 

Considering all the circumstances, the reports in the community touching 
the motives of the council, there remains, as it seems to me, but one course 
for us to pursue, and that is to make a statement to the public. If Mr. Mer- 
rill should leave the ministry, I should be disposed to stay proceedings. Our 
statement may be expected to appear as soon as the work of preparation 
can be completed. 

" The church and the world " can then read and judge for themselves ; and 
I ask for it on your part a careful and candid perusal. 

Sincerely yours, 

[Signed.] 0. B. CHENEY." 

We give you such portions of the correspondence of the council only as to 
show a demand corresponding with your request, and the position we have 
taken, that the community may not be misled to censure the council unjust- 



22 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

ly, or to construe their forbearance into a consciousness of error, or even of 
a "blunder." It is no secret that great efforts have been made to turn the 
influence of public opinion to the greatest advantage against the council ; 
even to the circulation of falsehoods, through the medium of epistolary cor- 
respondence, as well as that of other questionable means ; but we shall pass 
them in silence for the present, to be noticed only when the occasion shall 
require it. But to consider the objections to our report, and to give our 
reasons for coming to the conclusions embraced in it, will constitute the re- 
maining portion of our reply. 



FACTS, AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION. 



Notwithstanding the criticisms to which our former report has been sub- 
jected, we still hold it as not justly censurable, either as a novelty or an an- 
omaly ; neither as defective because it does not contain a synopsis of the tes- 
timony upon which its conclusions were based. 

We acted as an advisory council, called to sit with the church, and to as- 
sist in an investigation of the charges preferred, and to give such advice as 
we might deem proper, and to such extent as the church might require of 
us under the usages of our denomination. The church acted with us ac- 
cording to its custom, by a committee, to whom the testimony was present- 
ed, as well as to us ; and if more was desired of the council than a formal 
expression of opinion, as drawn from the testimony in the case, it should 
have been signified to them in a proper manner ; and we consider the church 
far more hasty in re-modeling and rejecting our report without further in^ 
quiry, than the council was defective in forbearing to encumber it with an 
array of such matter as no eye of chastity would ever desire to see. We re- 
peat the sentiment for which we hold ourselves responsible, that a rehearsal 
of testimony in a report under similar circumstances, as a general rule, is not 
practiced ; and it appears a matter of no small surprise to us, that the report 
of a former council in this very case, was never assailed as defective 
in this respect, although it contained but forty-one words, while ours, 
containing four hundred, was deemed unpardonably deficient. But " Men's 
judgments sway on that side fortune leans." There have been, it is 
true, some cases in which legislative committees, whose duty was to set facts 
before the public, rather than to give counsel, have reported the testimony in 
full ; but such cases do not constitute, in our opinion, a precedent for eccle- 
siastical councils, however intimately they may be connected with them. 

In answer to the accusation of hastening from the scene of conflict to shun 
responsibility, or to avoid scrutiny or reproach, we repel the charge ; for 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 23 

oar accusers know well the circumstances under which we were com- 
pelled to leave, and that we could not be at the opening of our report with- 
out incurring the expense of another visit to the place, which Ave did not 
deem advisable, unless in answer to a special call of the church. 

We did not leave through any fear of those from whom we had received 
many intimations that our services -would not be acceptable, if contrary to 
their pre-formed opinions ; but we left to return, with fidelity, to our domes- 
tic and pastoral duties, and to relieve our brethren in Portland of a burden, 
both oppressive to them, and unprofitable to ourselves. 

But we now consider it our duty to notice the aspersions aimed at our re- 
port in consequence of alleged contradictions in itself. The ground has 
been taken against us that a person could not be consistently adjudged guilty 
of " Seduction and Adultery," and stand acquitted on the charges of " Anti- 
christian in habits and pursuits, Falsehood." etc. A superficial view might 
lead to such conclusion, in many minds ; but an honest and logical investi- 
gation will show the error to be in the criticism, and not in the decision of 
the council. In the first place, let it be clearly understood that the council 
only acquitted the accused in the language of their report, and no further. 
They said, that " the evidence is, in our opinion, insufficient to fix upon him 
the certainty of these charges." To defend themselves against the charge 
of inconsistency, the. council are under the necessity of calling attention to 
the language of the accusation, as presented. They considered it their duty 
to confine themselves within the letter of the charges preferred. Hence, the 
first word claiming attention was c: Anti-christian." 

Omitting a more critical analysis of this word, which would strengthen our 
position still more, we were willing to let "Webster" define it in his own 
language; viz., " Anti-christian, a. Pertaining to Antichrist; opposite to, or 
opposing the Christian religion." One of his definitions we notice to be, 
" Pertaining to Antichrist ; " and this led us to examine his definition of 
" Antichi'ist," which is as follows ; viz., £: Antichrist, n. A great adversary of 
Christ; the man of sin, described in 1 John, ii. 18; 2 Thess. ii ; Rev. ix. 
Protestants generally suppose this adversary to be the Papal power; and 
some divines believe that, in a more general sense, the word extends to any 
persons who deny Christ or oppose the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." 
Taking his definition of the word " Anti-christian," as a noun, it coincides 
with the foregoing, as follows; viz., " Anti-christian, n. a follower of Anti- 
christ ; one opposed to the Christian religion." 

From the foregoing, the council were of the opinion, that intentional and 
avowed opposition to the Christian religion is implied in the term ; and, as 
the charge of intentional and avowed opposition to Christianity was not sustain- 
ed by the testimony, the council so expressed it in their report. Had the 
word unchristian been used in the,specification of charges, instead of " Anti- 
christian," the testimony introduced would have borne upon it with greater 
weight. 



24 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

But again. The charges read as follows ; viz., " Anti-christian in your 
habits and pursuits," etc. Now if the word, unchristian, had been substituted 
for " Anti-christian," then he must be proved to have been such in his "hab- 
its and pursuits," before the council could adjudge him guilty of the crime 
alleged. 

Here we are again compelled to give definitions. We give that portion of 
Webster's definition, which we considered applicable in this case ; viz., " (Hab- 
it.) A disposition or condition of the mind or body, a tendency or apti- 
tude for the performance of certain actions, acquired by custom, or a fre- 
quent repetition of the same act. Habit is that which is held or retained, the 
effect of custom or frequent repetition." From these definitions, the coun- 
cil held that a person might be proved guilty of any crime, and even of more 
than one, without fixing upon him " habits''' of crime. Taking the word " pur- 
suits," the council considered it necessary to prove a continuance of action 
in the direction of the crimes alleged, in order to sustain the accusation. 
And when it is observed, that he must have been proved guilty of both 
" habits and pursuits" not merely of an unchristian, but of an "anti-christian" 
character, in order to sustain the charges on that point, it will be well un- 
der stood by every intelligent mind, that the council might not find sufficient 
proof in the testimony introduced, to sustain that • charge, although he 
were held to be guilty of " seduction and adultery." In other words, a man 
may be a seducer and an adulterer, and not be an avoived enemy of Christ 
and Christianity. He may also be proved guilty of either of the crimes al- 
leged, in one or two instances, and not be proved to be so generally given 
to the crime as to constitute " habits and pursuits." 

But it has been ur^ed that, if Elder Merrill was guilty of " Seduction and 
Adultery," he must have been guilty of " Falsehood and Forgery," and that 
an acquittal on these charges, implies innocence of the others. 

This conclusion the council did not adopt. The specification of charges 
read, on this point, as follows ; viz., " And that you are guilty of forgery, and 
of communicating the most vile falsehoods to me and many others, against 
my wife, and offering to make oath to the same in order to effect a divorce 
between us." Was it proved to the council that Elder Merrill committed 
<: forgery " 1 

What should be considered forgery, in the opinion of the council, as ap- 
plicable to this case 7 Taking a legal view of the question, it was not con- 
sidered justifiable to attach that crime to alterations made in any papers, 
except such as involved some financial transaction. And, as there were many 
intimations to the council, that a legal view of this subject was advisable, 
they felt under some obligation to consider it in that light. But, referring 
to Webster's definitions, as we did in the other charges, it was found to " con- 
sist in counterfeiting a writing:, or in setting a false name to it, to the preju- 
dice of another person." Hence, so far as the action of the council related 
to this charge, with a view to a direct decision upon it, it was considered in 



THE TRIAL OF REV. "WM. P. MERRILL. 25 

a legal point of view ; but, with reference to it as affecting an opinion upon 
the other charges, the council felt at liberty to view it in its general accepta- 
tion. 

It was alleged that he altered certain letters in such manner as to constitute 
forgery ; but, although it might be evident to the minds of the council, that 
alterations had been made in the letters referred to, it was not directly proved 
who made them. It has been decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of this 
State, and may be found in the case of the State vs. Hiram Flye, Me. R., 
vol. 26, p. 312, " That proving an order to have gone into the hands of a 
person unaltered, and to come out of his hands altered, is not conclusive 
against him." It must be proved that he made the alterations, or he could 
not be condemned on that charge ; and, however strong the circumstantial 
evidence might have been against him, there was no one to testify directly to 
his making the alleged alterations. Hence the propriety of the clause in 
the report, which reads as follows : " Though there are circumstances out of 
which strong suspicions may arise in many minds, yet the evidence presented 
is, in our opinion, insufficient to fix upon him the certainty of these charges." 

The next crime alleged against him in the specifications, which the coun- 
cil did not consider sustained by the testimony, was that of " Falsehood ; " 
and the query is, if he committed the acts of " Seduction and Adultery," 
was he not guilty of falsehood 1 To this we reply, the specification of 
charges preferred against him is dated " Nov. 2d, 1860," and the falsehood 
must have been prior to that date, to sustain the council in finding him guilty 
of the crime alleged. 

The statements before the council, however false, could do no more than 
increase suspicions and give weight to testimony bearing upon facts, either an- 
tecedent to the date of the charge, or coeval with it. It might be an over- 
sight in the complainant in omitting to introduce any testimony directly to 
that point ; but, on a careful review of the evidence, the council were unable 
to discover sufficient testimony to support this charge. Neither could they 
find sufficient testimony to convict him of " attempting to effect a divorce be- 
tween " Mr. Barrows and his wife. 

In taking this position on the two charges last named, the council did not 
wish to be understood that they gave full credit to Elder Merrill's testimony 
and assertions before them in the trial, neither that they had not suspicions 
of falsehood in him prior to the date of ^lie charges ; but they desired to be 
understood that the testimony in the latter case was " insufficient " to con- 
demn him. and in the former, it did not come before them for adjudication. 
Should another charge be preferred against him, for testifying falsely before 
this council, his testimony would then become a matter to be investigated. 

It may be claimed that the position of the council in relation to the charges^ 
which they did not consider sustained by the testimony, was unnecessarily 
technical. 



26 ' DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

In reply to this, we remark, that the council were aware of the influence' 
to be met, and the difficulty of sustaining any position, however correct, 
unless it could be defended against the most unscrupulous" abuse and the 
most rigorous criticism ; and we now feel that, if the council erred in the 
expression of their opinion, it was through a desire to mitigate rather than 
magnify the evil, and to give the accused the benefit of all reasonable doubts. 

It was stated to the council by the one who presented the charges, that 
" they were hastily drawn," — that " the charges of Anti-christian in habits 
and pursuits and in business transactions, were preferred more for the pur- 
pose of showing the tendencies of Elder Merrill, than to obtain a direct de- 
cision upon them." 

Having thus briefly noticed that portion of the report which referred to 
the charges not fixed upon the accused with certainty, in the opinion of the 
council, our attention will next be given to the opposite portion ; and, al- 
though it is an unpleasant task to hold forth the faults" of the erring to the 
scrutiny of the inquisitive, yet we are no longer at liberty to withhold the 
facts which formed the principal basis of our decision, as it would be doing 
injustice to ourselves as well as to that cause whose interests have been 
committed to our hands. 

But we shall not attempt to transfer to these pages all the testimony, 
for reasons before assigned, and. should there be any so inquisitive as to de- 
sire a full knowledge of the affair as set forth therein, they must seek it in 
a different way. No important truth, however, will be kept in reserve. 
Nothing essential to the formation of a correct opinion will be intentionally 
withheld. But every intelligent and candid person must be aware, that it is 
impossible to set forth all the facts upon paper as they were presented to the 
council in the course of the,investigation, — that testimony reported second- 
hand, can neither strike the mind as forcibly, nor leave impressions as clear, 
as it does in the first delivery. There is much in the manner of delivery, - 
much in the expression of countenance, both of witnesses and parties, that' 
gives weight to testimony or attaches to it an invalidity, justly taken into 
account in forming a correct opinion. 

" Innocence unmov'd 
At a false accusation, doth the more 
Confirm itself; and guilt is best discover'd 
By its own fears." 

The charges, in which the counci! judged the " preponderance of evi- 
dence " so strongly against the accused as to sustain them, were " Seduction 
and Adultery ; " and, as they were so nearly allied in this case, that no sep- 
aration could well be made, and, as the same testimony introduced to prove 
one was relied upon to prove the other, they were both considered at the 
same time. In order to prevent a repetition of " blunders,''' it may be well 
to give our views, briefly, of what constitutes these crimes. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 



27 



Webster defines " seduction" as follows : " The act of seducing, or of en- 
ticing from the path of duty." He also defines " seducing," thus : " En- 
ticing from the path of virtue or chastity." It is derived from the verb " se- 
duce," which he defines thus: "To draw aside or entice from the path of 
rectitude and duty in any manner, by flattery, promises, bribes, or other- 
wise ; to tempt and lead to iniquity, to corrupt, to deprave." From these 
definitions, the council understood that, though a person might have been 
guilty of many crimes, it would be seduction to tempt or draw aside from 
the path of duty in another instance, however easily it might be done. 

But what constitutes " adultery " ? Webster says, " A violation of the 
marriage bed.'* 

Bouvier, in his " Dictionary" of legal terms, defines it, " A criminal con- 
versation between a man married to another woman, and a woman married 
to another man, or a married and unmarried person." The word " conver- 
sation " in this definition is, in our opinion, used in the sense of behavior, de- 
portment, or intercourse, as given by Webster in his first two definitions of 
the word. Hence a criminal intercourse, in violation of matrimonial rights 
and duties, pertaining to the marriage bed, constitutes that crime. There is 
another definition, coming from higher authority tban any we have yet quot- 
ed, which may be found in Matt. v. 28 ; but, as none but the Great Author 
from whom it emanated, can sufficiently penetrate the " thoughts and intents" 
of the heart, to judge correctly under these circumstances, the council con- 
sidered the question only in a tangible form, leaving all that men cannot pen- 
etrate, to the righteous decision of the " Great Day." 

And now the appropriate inquiry is, What was the evidence, the " prepon- 
derance " of which was so strongly against the accused in the opinion of the 
council, as to sustain these charges 1 This inquiry we shall attempt to an- 
swer with candor, submitting it to the decision of a candid, Christian senti- 
ment. 

At the commencement of the trial, a considerable amount of testimony was 
introduced, attempting to prove that the accu?ed had been guilty of the 
crime of " Seduction," at least, on former occasions ; but the testimony was 
so indefinite, as to justify the council, in their own minds, in declining to re- 
ceive it as full proof of his guilt. 

Another charge, however, was presented, which time and circumstances 
did not so strongly mystify. This was the main charge preferred against 
him ; and it was too clearly proved to the minds of the council to be disposed 
of as the others were. 

This was a charge of seducing Mrs. Emily Barrows, wife of W. C. Bar- 
rows who brought the accusation ; and the direct testimony in the case came 
from the one who was alleged to have been the victim of the crime. 

Mrs. Barrows' testimony was very lengthy, and occupied about seven 
pages of closely written matter in her direct statements, and some twenty-five 
pages, or more, of the cross-examination. For this reason — together with 



28 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

others before given, it will not be rehearsed. But it is proper for us here to 
state, that she charged Eld. Merrill, in the most positive language, with that 
course of conduct, which constitutes " seduction and adultery," in the fullest 
sense of the terms. She accused him of commencing his caresses in the fall 
of 1857, and continuing them at no lengthy intervals, until her affections for 
him became so strong as to overcome the dictates of her own judgment, 
resulting in the gratification of his desires in the commission of the crime. 

We presume it will not be expected that we shall give even a synopsis 
of the testimon3 r on this point. 

" Immodest words admit of no defense ; 
For want of decency is want of sense." 

The sentiment expressed by the poet is quite as applicable to immodest 
deeds as to " immodest words." But it may not be amiss to inform you, 
that the witness charged him with continuing his caresses for many months. 

She described his first advances in the folloAving language : "He [Eld. 
Merrill] went to bed early, about 9 o'clock. The next morning he came and 
sat down to the seraphine, and asked me in a low plaintive voice, what I was 
going to say the night before. He came and shook hands with me, and 
kissed me when he went away. When he came again, he put his arms round 
me, and kissed me. This was a few weeks after the time he kissed me when 
he went away. ****** When he came to preach once, he staid 
at our house all night ; Mrs. Hobbs was there. My husband went with Mrs. 
Hobbs to the depot. Elder Merrill came in and embraced me, and * * 
***** J refused him. * * * * * * jje was 
in to look at a house before he moved here. I went with him to see it. He 
put his arms around me and kissed me ; I don't know but he did twice. * 

* * * * * He always caressed me when he had opportunity. * 
****** When he [Elder Merrill] returned from the White 
Mountains, the first time he went there after he came to Portland, having 
borrowed a trunk of Mr. Gray, one of our boarders, he came to bring it 
home. I was in my chamber when he came in. He asked me if he should 
bring the trunk Up stairs. I told him he might. He came into my room. * * 

* lie approached me and putting his arms around me, backed me along 
towards the hod ; I would not step back much. * * * Nothing occurred 
more than that at that time, as I was feeling unpleasantly towards him. 

Prior to this, Elder Merrill was at the table in my parlor, examining the 
' Maine haw.' He did not spend his time in looking over the Law, but spent 
it with me. ***** j ] )ave told you I kissed him every time I got a 
chance. ***** * At another time, after he came with 
the trunk (it was at the break fast- table— Mr. Barrows was going into the 
country), Elder Merrill said, 'Are you going, too, sister Barrows'? ' I said 



THE TRIAL OF RET. WM. P. MERRILL. 29 

I was not. He came there to stay the first night after Mr. B. went away. 
He told me he should come to my room. I told him not to come. He came 
to my room at twelve o'clock at night. He said it was twelve. * * * 
* * * * He said in a very ingenious voice, ' You expected me 1 ' 
***** * I told him to go back to his room. * * * 
I don't know how long he was there ; think it likely it was an hour. I asked 
him if he believed what he preached. He said he did." * * * * 

But we have gone to the extent of our views of propriety in quoting from 
the testimony on this point. 

If the testimony of this witness was true, these crimes were fixed upon 
him without a possibility of mistake, and without one palliating circumstance, 
save that of her being a too willing subject of his caresses, though not of the 
foul deeds of which complaint was made ; and she was the victim of his per- 
nicious desires. The only disputed point was in relation to the truthfulness 
of the testimony. 

It is a settled principle in our courts of justice, that every witness is to be 
credited, unless impeached ; in other words, every person is to be considered 
truthful in law and justice, unless proved to the contrary. No tribunal has a 
right to assume an impeachment. Resting upon this fixed principle of law 
and justice, the accuser held, and justly, too, in the opinion of the council, that 
the testimony introduced had established the accusation, unless impeached. 

The defendant, probably aware that no intelligent and candid council 
could acquit him of the charge on any other condition, set Up such claim. In 
prosecution of this object, " copies " (1) of a series of seven letters, alleged 
to have been written by her, and sent to him (Eld. Merrill), were introduced, 
claiming to show an attempt on her part to seduce him, and to show that, as 
she had failed in her attempt, the accusation was a matter of malice and re- 
venge. But two of these copies, Nos. 1 and 2, were repudiated by the wit- 
ness as being " largely forged," and it was alleged that another one, No. 4, 
contained " important alterations." These charges of alterations in the let- 
ters constituted an important item in the opinion of the council, which, if 
sustained, would not only render the letters unavailing in the impeach- 
ment of the witness, but would be sufficient to establish her testimony, 
and sustain the charge. Before proceeding to consider the evidences and 
probability of alterations in these copies, it was proper to inquire wheth- 
er they would impeach the witness if they were genuine ; but the 
council failed to discover in them a sufficient contradiction to the testi- 
timony of the witness, to justify them in determining an impeachment. They 
would, if admitted, show her to have been a seduced and contaminated per- 
son, relative to her marriage .vows, and they did not show that the accused 
was not the seducer ; neither Was this shown by any other testimony, or that 
any other person was sufficiently implicated to exonerate him. On the oth- 
er hand, laying aside Nos. 1 and 2 of the series, which were alleged to be 



30 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 



" largely forged," and striking out the alleged alterations in No, 4, there was 
much more in them to corroborate the testimony of the witness, in the opinion 
of the council, than there was to contradict it. There were passages in Nos. 
6 and 7, that strengthened her testimony, and nothing that was irreconcilably 
conflicting. 
We can give only a few extracts, to illustrate, from copy No. 6 :— : 

******* Your friendship was dearer 
to me than all the world ; but I have driven you away, and am sorry when 
it is too late. How curiously you worked it last Sunday. You did not let 
your eyes meet hers. * * * * ■ When you looked that way, 
you was careful not to disturb her, but looked a little beyond. Once you 
made her wink fast, and she looked as though she did not know where to 
rest her eyes. I have pitied her a good many times, for I know how to. * 
****** My acquaintance with you reminds me of 
Jonah's Gourd, coming up to comfort him. I am sorry I ever knew such a 
pleasure." 

The language of this letter appeared to us precisely like that of jealousy, 
expressed to one with whom there had been, great intimacy. It did not oc- 
cur to us how to account for it on any other hypothesis. How could such a 
jealousy spring up in the mind, unless there had been intimacy 1 She inti- 
mated in this letter that the person of whom she was jealous, betrayed con- 
scious guilt in Elder Merrill's presence, and then said she knew " how to 
pity her." The question occurred to us how she could know " how to pity 
her," unless there had b<5en the same intimacy between her and Elder Merrill, 
which she. presumed existed between him and the other woman. It appeared 
to us that such correspondence as this was never known, except between 
those who had been accustomed to reciprocate. 

EXTRACTS FROM LETTER NO. 7. 

" Do you know how insulting you was in not answering my letter when I 
asked your forgiveness ] You had rather this whole matter would come 
out, than forgive me. *******j wen t Sat- 
urday night and told a person some things about you that I knew myself, 
and they said they would talk with a friend. I did not tell them I was the 
woman that knew these things, but I told them the woman would come for- 
ward when you are brought up for trial, and you will find that she will." 

It appeared to us proper to inquire what it was that she knew about him 
herself, Which she told that friend. For the answer to this inquiry, you are 
referred to the testimony of Bro. Rufus Deering (who was the friend referred 
to), which is inserted toward the close of the work. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MEREILL. 31 

Carefully investigating the subject in all its phases, the council could not 
suppress the belief that alterations had been made in the copies, as alleged, 
for the following reasons ; viz. : 

First. The copies of Nos. 1 and 2, said to have been " largely forged," did 
not correspond with the others in their style and tenor. They agreed much 
better with Elder Merrill's " Special Diary," than with the other copies. For 
instance, the word " slut," found in his diary very frequently, was found in 
none of the copies, except in the alleged forgeries. In fact, there was much 
in these copies, that appeared to the council to have originated in the same 
mind with the " diary." Many sentences were almost an exact transcript of 
some passages in said diary ; and as the letters were said to have been writ- 
ten some three months or more after the entry was made in the "diary," it 
was a remarkable circumstance, in our opinion, that the similarity should be 
so great. The striking and strange contrast between passages in the same 
letter, was, also, another feature that attracted our notice. The extremes of 
affection and revenge were alternately interspersed in rapid succession. 

Secondly. The very singular and even mysterious destruction of the origi- 
nal letters, was another strong cause of suspicion in our minds. "When we 
considered the almost unparalleled precaution exercised by him from the 
commencement of the affair, and contrasted it with the extreme carelessness 
of which the destruction of the letters must have been the result, if not in- 
tentional, the difference was so striking as to produce unwavering suspicions, 
heightened by the fact that he well knew they were to undergo another, and 
doubtless, a more critical examination, than they had yet been subjected to. 
The following facts in regard to this transaction we regard as sufficiently 
important to claim notice : — 

On the third day of November, in the afternoon, Elder Merrill sought a 
friend to assist him in copying the letters. 

The work was prosecuted until they succeeded in copying all the letters 
about which there was any dispute, when, to use Elder Merrill's own lan- 
guage, " it grew too dark to write," and Elder Merrill gathered up all but 
the new copies they had made, and, putting them in his " breast pocket," 
started for Gray, a distance of sixteen miles, to attend his appointment on 
the following day. He arrived at Mr. J. Small's, the place where the letters 
were said to have been burnt, about 9 o'clock in the evening. 

On the following morning, Elder Merrill's wife, noticing the crowded state 
of his pockets, desired him to let her take the letters out and put them in 
the valise ; but he refused, at the same time consenting that she might take 
out his diary and some other papers, which she did. 

Mrs. Small built a fire in the$, sitting-room on Monday morning at half-past 
six o'clock, and called Elder Merrill and his wife. At about 7 o'clock, 
Elder M. passed out through the dining-room and kitchen, by Mrs. Small 
(who was in the kitchen), toward the stable. In about five minutes (Elder 
Merrill did not claim it to have been more, and Mrs. Small thinks it could 



32 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

not have been so long as that), Mrs. Merrill gave the alarm of fire, when it 
was found that Elder Merrill's coat was burnt, as shown in the accompany- 
ing drawing, and all the letters, except No. 2, were said to have been burnt 
with it. But, as this affair will receive further attention in another place, we 
omit giving any more than a synopsis of the transaction at present. 

Numbers 1 and 2 of the copies were supported by no testimony but Elder 
Merrill's. No other person had ever seen the originals of which these pur- 
ported to be copies. He stated that he received No. 1, July 9, 1859, and 
No. 2, on the 24th of December following. In order to give a clear under- 
standing of the impressions made upon our minds by an examination of this 
transaction, we here introduce a portion of the testimony of Elder Merriil, 
as follows: " Letter No. 2 was first put into my hand by Mrs. Barrows at 
their house, in the forenoon of Dec. 24, 1859. The day I received the 2d 
letter, Mrs. Barrows begged of me to return the letters — said she was sorry 
she had written them, and if I would give them back she wouldn't trouble 
me again. I copied the letters, and cut a piece from No. 2, to preserve her 
hand-writing. Three days afterwards, I returned them. She took them at 
the door, on the 27th day of Dec, and tore them up fine, apparently in anger, 
and put them into her pocket or dress, and I passed on." 

Elder Merrill gave an account of this transaction to Mrs. Small in Gray, 
which she related to the council, as follows : In speaking of the letters being 
found after the burning of Elder Merrill's coat, she remarked, " He (Elder 
Merrill ) afterwards said it [an envelope] contained copies of the first two 
letters a vile woman wrote to him, and that she wanted him to give them up 
to her, and she would not trouble him any more. He said he copied them, 
and gave back the originals to her — ( ' this vile woman ') — that she tore them 
up and put them somewhere, — I think he said, in the fire, but I won't say 
certain. I think he did not say she put them in her pocket." 

As Mrs. Small has had time to refresh her recollection since she first tes- 
tified to the council, it might be well to ascertain what her recollections of 
Elder Merrill's statements are at present. The council have been informed 
that she is more confident of his having said, " She burned them," or " She 
put them in the fire." 

The foregoing account of copying and returning the letters, Nos. 1 and 2, 
to Mrs. Barrows, she [Mrs. B.] unequivocally denied. She did not deny 
sending a letter to Elder Merrill, neither did she deny giving him one ; but 
she denied asking him to return them, and said she never received them 
back. 

Elder Merrill asked her (speaking of their riding together the same day 
he received the last letter), " Did you cry as you returned home, and say 
you was sorry 1" 

Ans. by Mrs. B. " No. I never heard you speak of these letters after- 
wards." 

Ques. " Did you not promise to behave yourself, and not write any more 
letters, if I would give them up 1 " 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. HERRILL. 33 

Ans. " Never" 

These answers of Mrs. Barrows were given with strong emphasis, accom- 
panied by an evident expression of resentment, and a fixed indignant look. 

As the copies were strenuously objected to, the council required of Elder 
Merrill an affidavit to accompany them, and the following is a copy of the 
one presented j viz. : 



"Portland, Nov. 22, I860, 

CUMBERLAND, SS. 

I, Wm. P. Merrill of Portland, County of Cumberland, and State of Maine, 
do solemnly swear that the above letter is a true copy of the original sent 
to me. 

[Signed.] WM. P. MERRILL. 

Witness : [Signed.] N. Elwell. 
Sworn to before me, 

[Signed.] Geo. S. Nutting, Justice of the Peace." 

The above was attached by Elder Merrill to each of the first two copies. 
Perhaps no one will fail to notice that, in this affidavit, it is not stated from 
whom he received the letter. He does not say he received it from Mrs. Bar- 
rows, or from any other individual. It may be asked, why the council did 
not require of him definiteness in that particular. The answer is, they did 
not choose to dictate his affidavit. He was understood to be acting under 
the advice of very able counsel, with which advice the ecclesiastical council 
did not choose to interfere. 

As Elder Merrill made affidavit to the two copies now under considera- 
tion (Nos. 1 and 2), Mrs. Barrows, subsequently, when the rebutting testi- 
mony was introduced, made oath that she did not write the first two letters 
of the series in the same language as they were presented before the council. 
But this will be further noticed in another place. 

It was said that the destruction of the letters could be of no material 
service to Elder M., as but one of the originals about which there was a dis- 
pute, was destroyed, and that had been examined by a former council and 
others, who had decided that the letter had not been altered by any other 
hand than the original writer ; and their testimony was held to be sufficient 
to require a similar decision by the latter council. 

With all due respect for the opinions of the former council, we were com- 
pelled to believe that a more thorough investigation would have developed 
facts not brought to their notice. No one can claim that the attention of 
that council was urged so closely to the alleged alterations as it would have 
been on a subsequent examination. We concluded that the accused must 
have been aware of this ; and were it a fact that alterations had been made, 
it would be important to avoid the risk of another and a more rigid examin- 
tion. 



34 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL W 

That the former examination was not sufficiently thorough, was evident to 
our minds, from the testimony of those who made it, though not intentionally f 
defective ; and the following facts served to establish the correctness of this 
hypothesis. They occupied but a few hours in the examination of the tes- 
timony, including the letters with their alleged alterations. They were to- 
gether only some eight or nine hours in all. The width of the erasure in 
letter No. 4 was never measured, and they differed in opinion in regard to it. 
Their testimony fixed it somewhere between one-sixteenth and one-eighth of 
an inch in width, which they said would not be sufficient to v cover the letter 
d, alleged to have been in the erased word. We measured several ds, in her 
own hand-writing, and found that a large portion of them would be entirely 
covered by an erasure a trifle more than one-sixteenth of an inch in width. 
"We found several just one-sixteenth, and one, less than that ; so that an 
erasure, as wide as that council judged it to be, and as they made it in the 
lac-similes they presented to us, drawn from recollection, would cover more 
than one-half of the ds found in her writings that we examined. 

Again : No instrument was used by that council but the naked eye, and 
no chemical tests were applied to remove the superabundance of ink, that 
the original writing might be made to appear. Eight facsimiles of one of 
the alterations, made from recollection, were put into the hands of the latter 
council,— two drawn by members of the former council, and six by others. 
It will be seen by referring to them, as engraved, that a great difference of 
opinion existed among those who saw them, indicating to our minds the fact 
that no very critical examination of them was had before the former council. 
Some stated they thought there was a caret to indicate the place where the 
interlineation should come in, while others were quite as sure that no caret 
was used. 

It was suggested that if the word " used" were in the place of the erasure, 
it would have read as follows : " as used you to do;" but this was denied 
by a large majority of the witnesses, while others stated that that form of 
reading was not suggested. 

E,ev. L. D. Strout, clerk of the former council, stated to the latter council, 
as follows : "I did not hear it said before the former council, that the part 
altered would have read, ' as used you to do.' " 

Bro. J. A. Fenderson, one of Eld. Merrill's witnesses, who copied the let- 
ter, said, " I can not place the word ' you ' j the^ '*' might be forged. The 
words ' I wanted ' were darker than the rest of the letter, but not darker than 
gome other words in the letter." This latter statement was corroborated by 
other testimony, that " there were certain words, both in the lines and in the 
interlining, that resembled each other, differing from the main writing of the 
letter," both in regard " to the color of the ink and the penmanship." 

The " t" that Bro. Fenderson referred to as " might be forged," may be 
found in his facsimile, extending above the, erasure, at the left end. With 
reference to other words, " differing from the main writing of the letter/' it 



THE TRIAL 01 RET. WM. P. MERRILL. 35 

was urged that in case of an alteration, other words might be altered by re- 
tracing or some other means, in order to allay suspicion. The council did 
not determine that such was the case, neither did they determine that it was 
not, as they had no means of knowing ; but they concluded that if the " i 
might be forged," it might be so with the rest of it. It is proper to remark, 
however, that they examined several samples of Mrs. B.'s writing, in which 
many erasures occurred, and they did not find in any instance, one like that 
in the facsimiles, as they were presented to them. Not one of her erasures 
was so made as to obliterate the word. They were invariably made by draw- 
ing 'a few light strokes of the pen across the word, leaving the erased 
word perfectly legible. If she made the erasure in that letter, as shown in 
the facsimiles, it was a solitary instance 01 the kind, so far as the council 
had the means of examining. 

In order to give you as clear an understanding of the matter as possible, 
under the circumstances, we here insert the copy containing the alleged al- 
terations, as follows : 

" Tou asked me what I intended to do, that you might govern yourself ac- 
cordingly. I told you I calculated to treat you as bad as you had me. In 
my rage. I fear I have treated you too much as you deserve. I have been 
sorry, a great many times, that I ever said anything about the matter, to let 
you know I heard from you at different times, and in divers places, and 
when you denied so decidedly, and things, too, that you had said to me, of 
course, I thought you a monster. I feel now as though I could forgive 
you, I do not know what more I can do. I have done myself the greatest 
injury of any one. My age has something to do with tormenting me. I 
shall not expect you to take me in your arms, and bless me, 



( because I have forfeited all right to that sweetest of 



\ as you [used] to do 
all places ; however once I might have thought my good looks would make 
room for me. they have left me while I have been mourning : and you well 
-know which way my virtue leaned, for you are knowing to the whole af- 
fair. I should have been very glad to have settled this matter a great many 
+imes, if you had not treated me so inconsistently. You would meet me in 
the circle, and speak pleasantly, and take my hand, and, at Mr. Deering's 
you talked some with me. How much I expected you to come and see me 
after that. Then all the upbraidings of my conscience would rise mountain 
high. How many times I have contrasted you with two former lovers — 

wanteS* 

they left me because I would not, and you because I . 

How many times I have said, my God! what shall I do to rid myself of 
this wild raving 1 I think I am prepared now to bear my lot a little better 
than I have been sometimes. If vou are willing to forgive me, will vou les 



* Alleged alterations. See facsimile;. 



36 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

me know as soon as you can. I "will restore any intimations that I have 
made. 

If it would meet your approbation, I will make a small party, and invite 
you and family with others. 



E. B- 



If I do not hear from you by to-morrow noon, my ravings possibly will re- 
turn, I fear." 

The following certificate was appended to this letter : 

" The foregoing is a true copy of a letter sent me by mail by Mrs. Bar- 
rows, and received April 21st, 1860, and opened in the presence of wife. 
[Signed.] WM. P. MERRILL." 

Mrs. Barrows admitted this letter to be correct in all but the two places 
marked as alleged alterations. She said the first place read as in the 
lower line ; and, in the other place, the word "wanted," was never written 
by her, but the space it occupied was simply a dash. She subsequently made 
oath to this statement, and insisted that the word " used," as written in the 
lower line of the first alteration, had been erased by some other person, and 
the words, " I wanted," written above the line. She also said the letter was 
sent some three or four weeks before the time stated in the certificate. The 
following questions forced themselves upon us : " Why should Mrs. B., after 
she had written a letter that did not implicate herself exclusively, alter it so 
as to do if? If the word ' used'' was not erased, what word could it be 1 " 
No solution to these questions was offered, except the one given by Mrs. B., 
and they left an impression on the minds of the council exclusively in her 
favor. 

It was insisted before the council, that the letter in which these alleged al- 
terations occurred, and which was said by Eld. Merrill to be the fourth one 
he received from Mrs. B., was actually the third. 

Mrs. B. insisted upon this, as she also did before the former council ; and 
our attention was called to the letters as circumstantially corroborating the 
statement. As we were led to consider this assertion as containing some de- 
gree of probability, it is proper that we should give our reasons. To do this, 
we must insert a copy of No. 3, as Eld. Merrill claims, but said by Mrs. B, to 
be No. 4, which is as follows : 

" I have been thinking of making you this proposal, if you will tell me that 
you will leave at the close of your third year here, I will not trouble you any 
more ; I will endure all my torments in silence. I never had trouble with any 
one before, but what I could find some way to settle the matter ; but I see 
no way to get over this. 

If you will let me speak to you about this, I should be glad to do so ; and, 
as you would not condescend to come here, will you walk down to Mr. Stone's 



THE TRIAL OF BEY, WM, P. MEMMML i~ 

" Riding School,' 7 on South Street? I shall go at 10. a. m. to-morrow. If 
you are not: willing to do me this small favor, you may suffer the conse- 
quences. I intended to put all my threats in force, when I made them : hut, 
for some cause unknown to me. I have heen kept from doing it- I merely 
propose this walk. I know of no other way to get an answer. One thing is 
certain, you had not better delay an answer four weeks, as you did when I 
asked you something before." 

The following memorandum was made underneath, acknowledged by Eld. 
Merrill to be by himself. 

' : The original was received, Apr. 18£h I860." 

The next letter of the series presented, was dated May 18th, and admitted 
by Eld. Merrill to have been received May 21st, 1860. In this letter, (>~ : S 
occurred the following language : 

A i :o the apology that you sent me to sign, I will return it unsoiled. by 
my name, as you may need it more to send in some other direction. I only 
asked to be forgiven for looking into so base an affair as I thought that to 
be. And, as I heard you preach some very good sermons on forgiveness, I 
did not know but you was in earnest, and I thought you held to forgiveness. 
On that principle, about two months ago, I asked you to forgive me." 

Now the argument adduced, for which the letters were claimed as a fc i d a 
was this : 

In the letter from which this last quotation is selected (So. 5}, Mrs. Bar- 
rows asserted, that it was " about two months ago, I asked you to forgive 
me." It was observed, that this letter was dated May 18th, as before noted, 
and two months prior would carry it back to the 18th of March ; whereas, the 
letta said by Eld. Merrill to be No. 4, and being the one in which Mrs. B. 
had asked forgiveness, and having no date, was said by Eld. Merrill not to 
have been received, till April 21st 

It was also observed that No. 3 was acknowledged to have been recei-ed 
Apr. 13th. which was only three days before the 'reception of the one in dis- 
pute. Mrs. B. denied having written two letters with so little interval be- 
tween. It was claimed,, that a careful reading of the two letters would show 
that the one marked Ho. 4 had evidences of priority in the propositions It 
contained, and that the other would harmonize well, as a subsequent pro- 
duction. 

But you may desire to know why this was considered a point of material 
consequence in the case. We answer your inquiry by giving the brie: 3-..;.:r- 
ment made to the council at the time of the examination, as near as we can 
recollect. As it was briefly stated at the time, it was not made a mattei ::' 
record. 



38 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

It was suggested, that if Eld. Merrill altered No. 4, he would wish to keep 
it on hand some time for the purpose of maturing the matter ; and that, after 
he had accomplished the work, it was important to have it come through the 
post-office in its new form, that it might he shown to some one, who could 
testify that it came to him with the alterations as it was presented to us. 
Hence the suggestion of its being re-mailed, and received at the time he 
made the entry in his " special diary," and also an indorsement at the bottom 
of the letter. 

In order to give the facts connected with these letters in as clear a light as 
possible, we would state that copy No. 3, presented to us by Elder Merrill, 
had the following memorandum underneath, as we have given before ; viz. : 

"The original was received April 18th, 1860." 

No. 4 had no memorandum accompanying it, except, " J. A. Fenderson. 
Copy." 

But Elder Merrill had previously copied these letters for Mr. Barrows, 
who produced the copies in Elder Merrill's own hand- writing, with the fol- 
lowing memorandums at the bottoms : 

No. 3. " A true copy of letter from Mrs. rec'd April 18th, I860. This 
was taken from the P. 0., and read, and then handed to me by my wife." - 
[Signed.] WM. P. MERRILL." 

No. 4. " The foregoing is a true copy of a letter sent me by mail from 
Mrs. Barrows, and received April 21st, 1860, and opened in the presence of 
wife." 

[Signed ] WM. P. MERRILL." 

If it was necessary to make such entries at the bottoms of these letters, 
why were copies put into the hands of the council without them 1 

Our attention was called to the fact, that these two copies were the only 
ones that had similar certificates attached. Inquiry was made for the en- 
velop in which No. 4 came, but it had shared the same fate as the letter, or 
some other fate, no better adapted to our purpose. Corresponding with the 
memorandum under the bottom of these letters, were the entries made in 
Elder Merrill's " special diary." 

But, as this was merely an incidental affair, and was not taken into account 
in coming to our decision, it is submitted to you, with the letters referred to, 
and a quotation from No. 5, to which you can refer at your pleasure. 

As you have already been apprised, the original letter was not before us, 
and we had to rely, solely, upon the testimony of others, a portion of which 
has already boon given. We now present to your notice the representations 
of the first alteration, as given to us at the time of the investigation. 

The erasure and a few of the accompanying words are engraved fac-similes 
of the originals in our hands, and the language is an exact quotation. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM, P. MEERILL. 39 

Only a portion of the sentence is given by some ; but a reference to the 
letter which precedes this, will be all the explanation necessary. 



FAC-SIMILES, ETC. 




e and bless me gL^A&ggggmsaBrJ js*-****-* to do because I have for- 
feited all right to that sweetest of all plaees however onee. 5 



This is a fac-simile as near as I can remember of the original. 

[Signed.] W. P. MERRILL.' 



1 1 shall not expect you. to take me ia your arms and bless me as 



v CT^<^ to do. 



" The above is a correct fac-simile of the same passage in the original let- 
ter, as it was when I first read it, and when it was presented to the council 
©f which I was a member, to the best of my recollection. 

[Signed.] JOHN STEVENS." 

1 1 shall not expeet you to take me in yosir arms and bless me m 

^A^^t-todo. 

[Signed.] «< 0. W. SMITH." 

s and bless me as ££*/ /aSOUBBKBV j 

11 This certifies that the above is a true copy of the original letter referred 
to, as made by (or from) recollection. 

[Signed.] J. A. FENDERSON." 



40 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 



' I shall not expect you to take me in your arms and bless me as 




to do, because I have forfeited all 



right to that sweetest of all places. 
[Signed.] 



W. C. BARROWS/' 



/^Z^c / fl tf Jta ^TOf to ^0. 



" Could not tell whether ' I wanted' was over the erasure or where. 

[Signed.] R. DEERING." 







This is according to my best recollection. 
[Signed.] 



to do. 



L, D. STROUT.' 



TESTIMONY OP C. J. MOEBIS IN RELATION TO LETTER SAID TO BE 
CHANGED. 



3 tv»Mk 

First item. • &4 J^-^xc 



to do.' 



" This was the position of the words in regard to the erasure. The two 
following versions were the only ones given in the former council, or that I 
ever heard from any person, until the testimony of Elders Stevens and 
Smith ; viz.: — 

' As I wanted you to do.' 

1 As you used to do.' 

In these two forms they were read repeatedly before the former council, 
and it seemed very strange to me, that a person writing with such perfect 
abandonment as Mrs. Barrows did, should make such a careful and studied 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 41 

erasure, (let the word erased, be 'used? or any other word), and then pro- 
ceed to make use of a word that would condemn herself. 

wanted? 

The second item said to be changed was, ' You because I . The 

word, ' wanted,' was written directly over the dash. The writing and ink 
in the second item, to my mind, gave more evidence of a change than the 
first. 

The first time the letter was read in Mrs. Barrows' presence, was at Bro. 
Deering's. When I came to the place, ( as I wanted you to do,' she rose ex- 
citedly from her chair, saying in substance, ' I never wrote that? adding, ' I 
want to see that letter,'' As soon as she saw the letter, which was handed to 
her later in the evening, she said without hesitation, ' I told you it was chang- 
ed; the word, " used" has been erased.' 

[Signed.] C. J. MORRIS. 

Portland, Nov. 28, 1860." 

The clerk of the former council gives the testimony of Mrs. B. as taken 
at that time, as follows : When the letter marked No. 3 was read, Mrs. Bar- 
rows said, " This is not the first letter after the two copied ones." 

When No. 4 was read, she explained it, saying : " The expression, the 
matter, meant what she had said to Mary. As I wanted you to do, should read, 
as you used to do. You are knowing to the whole affair means, he had tor- 
mented me day and night." She said he wrote the word ." wanted" in the 
latter place. 

On examining the fac-similes presented, a discrepancy was found as we 
have before intimated. We deem it proper to call your attention to that sub- 
ject more fully, as it appeared to us to be an important item, however it 
might have been considered at the time of the former investigation. 

You will observe, by referring to the preceding engravings, that the first 
three fac-similes represent the word " you?" 1 after the erasure ; one does not 
give it ; and four give it before the erasure. 

It may be asked, How we could account for this % We shall give the facts 
connected with it as they came to us, and submit the conclusion to your 
judgment. 

The first fac-simile inserted is that of Elder Merrill himself, and this we 
pass, for the present, without comment. The second is that of Rev. J. 
Stevens, who was chairman of the first council, as you will recollect, whose 
testimony before us was as follows : — 

" Mr. Barrows examined the letters in our presence. I think he took the 
whole of them. He handed them back to me, stating that the five were in 
his wife's hand-writing, with a single exception, which, he stated, was possi- 
bly an alteration by some other hand. My first conclusion was that it was 
written by the same pen. Mr. Barrows claimed that the word, ' used? was 



42 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 



blotted out, and the words, • I wanted,'' interlined above. I came to the con- 
clusion that it was not altered because it seemed to be written by the same 
pen, and because of the grammatical construction." 

The third representation, as given in the preceding, was presented by Rev. 
0. W. Smith. . . 

.The examination of the letters by this witness was not before the former 
council, but it was at Elder Merrill's house, on the first day of Nov., which 
was ten days after the meeting of the former council, and only two days prior 
to the copying of the letter at Mr. Fenderson's, and four days before it was 
said to have been burned. This may account in part for the discoveries 
made by this witness, hitherto unnoticed. But we did not fail to observe that 
this examination was not in presence of Mrs. Barrows, or any of her friends. 
In order to have a claim to our unqualified recognition, it should have been 
in presence of the writer or some other person prepared to assume the re- 
sponsibility of acting in her stead. In the absence of this necessary concom- 
itant, the writer had an undoubted right to raise the following objections : — 
First, that it was not the original letter; and secondly, that it might have 
undergone further alteration since the sitting of the first council, and that it 
was destroyed in four days after to prevent a detection of further fraud. 
But we refer you to the extracts from Rev. 0. W. Smith's testimony, near the 
close of this report. 

Next in order will be found that of J. A. Fenderson. It will be noticed 
that he does not insert the word "you" His testimony has already been in- 
troduced. That his attention had not been directed to the alteration very 
minutely, is evident from the fact that he could " not fix the word * you? " 

The fifth engraving is from the pen of W. C. Barrows, husband of the 
witness. He claimed it as a correct representation. 

The sixth in order was given to us by Rufus Deering. His testimony on 
this point accompanies the engraving. He thinks it correct. 

The seventh, by Rev. L. D. Strout, clerk of the former council, whose testi- 
mony on this point has already been introduced, and from which, together with 
that of Bros. J. A. Fenderson, C. J. Morris, and others, it appeared to us 
that the " grammatical" objection was not raised before the former council ; 
and if it was noticed at that time, or if it had been observed by any one be- 
fore, why it was passed in silence, is a query not yet sufficiently explained. 

For the eighth, you are referred to the testimony of C. J. Morris, which 
has already been introduced in connection with his engraved representation. 

But there is one point on which they all agree, and that is, that the era- 
sure was a " perfect blot"; or, in other words, "it entirely covered the 
word over which it was made." We have before stated, that in all the era- 
sures which we saw, known to have been made by Mrs B., the word under- 
neath was distinctly legible. 

The first part of letter No. 4 appeared to the council decidedly against 



THE TRIAL OF RET. WM, P. MERRILL. 43 

Elder Merrill; and. in fact, taking Mrs. B.'s construction of it. it was strong 
testimony against him throughout. In the remark. :: I have done myself the 
greatest injury of any one." she said she referred to the fact that she had 
communicated her suspicions of his improper conduct towards other women, 
to others. She affirmed that, in alt cases where she had expressed sorrow 
for what she had done towards Elder Merrill, and where she had expressed 
a willingness to confess, and a desire to be forgiven, it was for communicating 
her suspicions about him to the girls in his family, by which it had reached 
Jlrs. Merrill. In regard to " two former lovers/' mentioned in this latter, 
she said, that two had in former times, been permitted to caress her, but that 
she rejected farther advances, and they withdrew. The whole tenor of the 
letter indicated to us that there had been an intimacy between them ; that 
she had become jealous of him, thinking that he had neglected her, and be- 
st wed his affections upon others ; and that she desired him to satisfy her 
mind, that he would not bestow his affections and caresses upon others, and 
would return to terms of friendship ; as they were at that time so averse to 
each other, as not to exchange customary salutations even in social gather- 
ings. 

Could the latter council have had the original letter for examination, the 
disputed points would have received particular attention, not only by an oc- 
ular examination, but by other means, better calculated to develop the 
truth. It is not unfrequently the case that an over-ruling Providence devel- 
ops the truth of some important and mysterious event by what at first ap- 
pears a trivial incident, but which serves as a key to unlock the covering, 
and bring to light the hidden transaction. So it appeared to the council, 
that in this small erasure and interlineation, lay the key to this whole contro- 
versy. Could it have been shown that the word " used " was the word erased, 
and that the " t r: extending above the erasure never belonged to the original 
word, there could have been but one opinion formed in every candid mind. 
But this key was placed beyond our reach ; and whether by sheer careless- 
: r gross fraud, it could not, in any measure, be attached to Mrs. Bar- 
rows, or to any one acting in her behalf. While Elder Merrill claimed the 
letters as his protection, Mrs. Barrows as earnestly contended that they con- 
tained the confirmation of her testimony ; and. as he introduced them to 
criminate her. she had both a legal and a moral right to require that he 
should faithfully preserve them, and produce them in the same form and 
language in which they came from her hand. "Why did he not 1 

Now that the original letters, and. consequently, the alterations, were put 
beyond our reach, the key to this controversy was transferred from the 
alterations in the letters to the manner in which they were said to have been 
destroyed. Could it have been * satisfactorily shown that Elder Merrill had 
exercised necessary care over the original letters, and had been deprived of 
them by means beyond his control, while in the exercise of due diligence, he 
would be entitled to favorable consideration: but. en the jtLer hand, if he 



44 



DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 



had either carelessly or intentionally allowed them to be concealed or de- 
stroyed, he alone should be responsible. In support of this position, we 
quote from " A Treatise on Evidence, by S. Greenleaf," p. 48, § 37: " The 
presumption of innocence may be overthrown, and & presumption of guilt be 
raised by the misconduct of the party, in suppressing or destroying evi- 
dence which he ought to produce, or to which the other party is entitled." 

This Elder Merrill did not comply with ; and was the reason he assigned 
for not so doing, a sufficient one \ It was the burning of the letters under 
very singular and suspicious circumstances, such as were both contradictory 
in themselves, and contrary to fixed laws of nature. It was contradictory in 
Elder Merrill's own testimony. He testified before the council as follows : 

Question. "Was the coat wet V 

Ans., by Elder Merrill. " It might be a little damp ; don't think I hung it 
on the chair for the purpose of drying." 

Now the Rev. Dr. D wight stated in his direct testimony that Elder Merrill 
said to him at the time he informed him of the burning of the letters, that, 
" My coat being wet, I had hung it upon a chair to dry." The same witness, 
in answer to a question subsequently put by the council, said, alluding to 
Elder Merrill, " He said his coat was wet, and he hung it on a chair. I think 
he said it was the third and fourth letters that were burnt." 

Again, Elder Merrill's statement conflicted with that of Mrs. Small, in 
Gray, where the coat was burnt. He [Elder M.] testified as follows : 

" The chair on which the coat was hung, was near the door that leads to 
the dining-room, when I came down stairs. Don't know as I moved the 
chair at all ; might have turned it round. Don't know but I took the chair 
from the wall near where I left it. The chair was in front of the fire when 
the coat was on it ; I think a little nearer the door than the middle of the 
fire." 

But Mrs. Small testified in relation to it as follows : 

" I am somewhat ' oldmaidish' about placing the chairs. I set them round 
the room, but none near where the coat was burnt. I think the chair must 
have been taken from the opposite side of the room, near the bed-room door. 
I don't know certain as it was taken from that place." 

Now it is a habit of Mrs. Small to be very particular in placing the chairs, 
and as there was not room between the sofa and the dining-room door for a 
chair without, obstructing the travel, and as Mrs. Small was the last person 
in the room before the entrance of Elder Merrill, she having built a fire in it 
about one-half hour before, was it probable that she would leave a chair in 
the place he spoke of, contrary to her custom in all cases 1 Was it not al- 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 45 

most a certainty that he took the chair from the opposite side of the room, as 
she believed he did 1 If so or not, why did he turn the chair back to the 
fire, and leave it so near as to fall into it 1 The foregoing questions are 
suggestive of the view taken by the council. 

But again, Elder Merrill stated, - " It was a good, smart fire ; had a good 
bed of coals ; I should think it had been built an hour or two. I judged by 
the atmosphere in the room, and other things." 

Mrs. Small's testimony on this point was as follows : — 

" I built a fire in the sitting-room about half-past six. There was but one 
stick of wood and a few coals. Elder Merrill passed through the kitchen 
where I was about seven o'clock." Mrs. Small also said, •'' the weather be- 
ing warm, I built but a small fire." 

It may be thought a matter of little consequence whether it was a large 
or a small fire ; but of this we shall speak more fully hereafter, A question 
of no little consequence in our estimation was, — How did the chair and coat 
get upon the fire 1 We will first introduce Elder Merrill's own statement be- 
fore the council, as follows: — 

"I can't account for the chair's being tipped over, only on account of the 
weight of the coat, or the draught of air, or the jar of the door on closing." 
Again he said, " I closed the door as I usually do. I don't think the laying 
of the coat upon the chair would have tipped it over without some other 
cause. I think if the chair had tipped when I put the coat upon it, I should 
have seen it before I went out." He also showed his method of putting his 
coat upon a chair, saying he was in the " habit of doing so." 

But we now give you the opinion he expressed to Mrs. Small at the time 
of the burning, as given in her testimony before the council, as follows: — 

" Elder Merrill said it must be a cat or dog that turned over the chair. I 
replied it could not be, as we had none round the premises." 

In revi*w of Elder Merrill's own testimony, we found no cause assigned 
that was entitled to our confidence. The first cause he assigned was the 
"weight of the coat." This was not sufficient, in our opinion; for by ex- 
perimenting with the very chair upon which it was burnt, it was found nec- 
essary to add ten pounds more weight to the top of the chair in order to 
overturn it. Hence it -would have required more than five such coats as the 
one in question, which weighed but little over two pounds, to effect the over- 
turning of the chair. But the .second cause he assigned was the draught of 
air. This was more absurd, in the opinion of the council, than the other. 
It was in testimony by all who witnessed the affair, that the doors in 
the room were " all closed," so that when Elder Merrill closed the door 



46 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

after him, it must have been the only one in motion at that time. It only 
needs to try the experiment to show that the closing of a door will have no 
perceptible effect upon a chair under similar circumstances ; and the same 
is equally true in regard to " the jar of the door." We could conceive of 
but two ways by which a chair weighing eight pounds, and having upon its 
back a coat weighing but little over two pounds, could be overturned in a 
similar situation. The first would be by a violent throw of the coat, involv- 
ing its momentum, in addition to its weight. But Elder Merrill stated that 
he thought he " should have seen it before he went out," had this been the 
case ; and we presumed he was correct in that. When it was observed that 
the door swung toward the chair, as will be seen in the diagram, the distance 
of the chair from the door being taken into account also, we were disposed 
to believe that no one would dispute his opinion. 

The other way would be by striking the chair with the door in swinging 
it open. But there were sufficient reasons, in our opinion, for rejecting this 
also. First, if the chair stood where Elder Merrill said it did, and where it 
must have been to be found in the position represented by Mrs. Merrill, the 
door would not have reached it in swinging. Secondly, upon trying the ex- 
periment, it was found that the door would not have overturned the chair, 
without, at the same time, turning it partly round, so that it would have fall- 
en from the fire, instead of upon it ; and Elder Merrill would have been 
quite as certain to have known it, as if it had fallen by the momentum of 
the coat. 

The discrepant phenomena developed after the burning of the coat were a 
source of strong suspicion. The testimony of Mrs. Merrill was taken at her 
residence, by request of Elder Merrill, and the "consent of the other side ; 
and in giving it, she placed a chair upon the stove, showing the manner in 
which the chair and coat were found when she entered the room. She indi- 
cated the position of the coat by a stroke of the hand, saying, at the same 
time, " The coat lay across the chair in this way." (See diagram and explan- 
ation in the latter part.) The direction of the hand is shown by the arrow 
drawn across the back of the chair, which is represented in the drawing as 
she placed it. 

The burnt part of the chair is such as to confirm the testimony of Mrs. 
Merrill in regard to the position of the chair upon the fire ; and Mrs. Small's 
testimony is also in harmony with it. 

Now if Elder Merrill placed the coat upon the chair as he represented to 
the council, it was not satisfactorily shown how it got into the position shown 
by Mrs. Merrill. The action of the fire upon the coat proved Mrs. Merrill to 
have been correct in her representation, and as clearly refuted the testimony 
of Elder Merrill. But the letters were not all burnt. One was found by 
Mrs. Small under the stove, in such a position as to give rise to many que- 
ries. It must have been another singular freak of the laws of nature. The 
letter was found by Mrs. Small, as she testified, lying " a good way under 



THE TEIAL OF KEY. TVM. P. MEEEILL. 47 

the store." She said she had to get down upon her knees to reach it ; " had 
to reach in a good way to get it." 

Now, as the hearth of the stove was hut five inches from the floor, and as 
the pocket in which the letter was said to be, was perpendicularly over the 
hearth, it must have performed a remarkably circuitous route in reaching its 
place of safety. When Elder Merrill represented the manner of laying his 
coat upon a chair, he folded it wrong side out, and hung it about mid- 
way of the coat upon the top of the chair-back, which brought the breast 
pocket, containing the letters, on the upper side, interposing the coat itself, 
as another obstacle in the track of the letter which was saved. If the coat 
was right side out, the letters would have been enclosed within it. so that all 
must have been either partially or totally destroyed. The preservation of 
the copy saved was no less mysterious, in the view of the council, than the 
overturning of the chair. They could discover no way by which the copy 
could get separated from the others, as they were all in one pocket ; neither 
could they be satisfied of any proper cause for its being found so far under 
the stove. But the preservation of this was a matter of no consequence, as 
the original bad been destroyed long before, and there were other copies of 
it remaining. 

Another remarkable circumstance was that the top of the coat should ex- 
tend into the fire. We have before stated that the hearth was five inches 
from the floor, to which may be added the height of the fire above the hearth, 
making the resting-place of the coat collar about nine or ten inches above 
the floor. Now if you should place a coat upon the back of a chair and 
overturn it, so that it would fall upon something nine or ten inches higher 
than its base, in our opinion, it would invariably double under, so that the 
part lying on the top of the chair would either extend beyond the pendant 
part, or lie directly upon it ; and in either case, the burnt fine must differ 
from the line in this case, as shown in the drawing. In other words, it was 
the opinion of the council that the collar of the coat would not have ex- 
tended into the fire, but would have laid on the hearth ; and that portion 
which was on the top of the chair would have been burnt. 

But again : "Was there sufficient time for the collar of the coat to burn, be- 
tween the egress of Elder Merrill from the room, and the ingress of 
Mrs. Merriin What was the testimony on this point, and what was the 
facf? Elder Merrill stated before the council that he presumed he had 
been' out of the room " somewhere not far from five minutes," when he 
i: heard the cry of fire." Mrs. Small said '•'• it might.be five minutes," in her 
first testimony ; but on reflection, she has since stated to two of the council 
as follows : — ;; I don't think it was five minutes after he went out before the 
alarm was given. I can't think there was time for a coat collar to burn." 
Having tried an experiment, we found the result to be corroborative of her 
opinion. The discrepancy between Elder Merrills and Mrs. Small's testimo- 
ny, relating to the fire, has already been noticed, and the object of which 



48 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

will now appear. Elder Merrill represented it as " a good, smart fire — had a 
good bed of coals," etc. A " good, smart fire" would consume a coat col- 
lar in less time than a small one. Mrs. Small represented it in a different 
light. It had been built but half an hour, and had but " one stick of wood, 
and &few coals." The weather being warm at that time, but a small fire was 
needed. 

Mrs. Small testified that " the coat collar was all burnt up " when she en- 
tered the room. Now will a coat collar on a small fire, wjth a few coals, 
burn " all up " in five minutes 1 An experiment has since been made by put- 
ting a coat collar similar to the one burnt upon a fire made of four sticks of 
wood, with a good bed of coals ; the fire having been burning over half an 
hour ; and when the collar had laid upon it fifteen minutes, there was suffi- 
cient tenacity in its texture to preserve its form nearly perfect when re- 
moved ; while, according to the testimony, Elder Merrill's collar " was all 
burnt up " in five minutes. 

It was also proved to the council, that the room had such a quantity of 
smoke in it as to give the impression that the coat must have been burning 
more than five minutes. There was a remarkably good draught to the 
Franklin stove in which the coat was burnt, and the burning part laid so far 
into the fire that it appeared a matter of surprise to Mrs. Small and others, 
that so much smoke should accumulate in so short a time. 

We have before remarked that but one letter was said to have been pre- 
served from the fire ; but it is said there was a small piece saved from an- 
other. Why was it not preserved 1 Elder Merrill was very careful to pre- 
serve a small piece, which he said he cut from one of Mrs. B.'s letters to 
show the hand- writing ; „but we were told by his wife that he did not think 
this piece saved from one of the burnt letters, of any consequence. Mrs. 
Merrill, however, concluded it was best to save it, and she put it into a safe 
place for preservation — into a little box, locked up in the drawer of her bu- 
reau, — supposing she could produce it at any time, if desired. But when 
the council desired to see it, as a matter of proof that the letters were really 
burned, and also to see if it did not contain some item of useful information, 
much to her surprise it could not be found, though she had had it in her 
hand but a few days before. 

We have before remarked that Mrs. Merrill desired to take the letters 
from her husband's pocket, Sunday morning, but he refused. We now intro- 
duce the testimony relating to it, giving Mrs. Merrill's first; as follows: 

" My husband was in the sitting-room Sunday morning, in his shirt sleeves 
— his coat was laying across the back of a chair. I commenced examining 
it, and found the pockets were full, and very heavy, — one of the skirt pock- 
ets, and the breast pocket. I spoke to him about the letters, asking if he 
did not think I had better take them out. He said, ' No ; they are safer 
there.' But I took the diary and some other papers from the skirt pocket, 



THE TRIAL OP REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 49 

and put them in the valise. There were some letters and newspapers with 
the diary." 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. SMALL, OF GRAY. 

" His wife said she wanted him toilet her put the letters in the valise, but 
he would keep them with him for fear of some accident." 

The fact that Elder Merrill pretended to be so much afraid of " some acci- 
dent," that he would keep the letters in his pocket, and then take a chair, 
and set it with the back toward the fire, so near as to fall upon it. when he 
knew these letters were in the pocket of that coat, appeared to the council as 
another ground for believing there was something wrong. It did not corres- 
pond with their views of the foresight and precaution he had exercised in all 
other cases. The following queries were suggested to us : 

If Elder Merrill desired the safety and preservation of the letters, would 
they not have been much more secure in the " safe " of his friend who cop- 
ied them, than in his own pocket 1 Could the letters be more safely guard- 
ed from " accident " in his coat pocket, lying around carelessly upon chair^ 
and elsewhere, than in the valise % On the other hand, if he desired to de- 
stroy them, he would keep them with him, and watch for an opportunity to 
do so. 

But every vestige of the original letters -was annihilated, except a small 
piece which Elder Merrill said he had cut from letter No. 2. . Mrs. B. admit- 
ted that she wrote this slip ; that it was a portion of a letter which she gave 
to Elder Merrill ; but she also said that the language connected with it in 
the copy, differed from that in the original, and led to a conclusion differing 
materially from the original intention ; thus giving the council another strong 
reason for the production of the original letters. Surrounded, as these 
n copies " were, with so much suspicion and mystery, and containing so much 
to criminate Elder Merrill, we could not feel justified in considering them 
sufficient cause for the impeachment of Mrs. Barrows' testimony. 

B ut it was claimed by Elder Merrill and his friends in defense, that Mrs. 
B.'s complaints were made, and her testimony given, under the influence of 
a revengeful spirit, and this was a sufficient cause for discrediting her state- 
ments. However i! blundering" or "sinful" it may be considered in the 
council, they viewed it in a different light. They failed to discover, either in 
her testimony or her deportment towards Elder Merrill, or to gather 
from the testimony of others, sufficient proof of her being influenced by a 
spirit of revenge to warrant such conclusion. All her acknowledged letters 
breathed a desire for a reconciliation of difficulties ; and while she insisted 
upon the truth of the charges, she manifested the spirit and feelings of one 
whose affections had been won and betrayed, in consequence of which, a 
feeling of uncontrollable jealousy had become predominant. But this point 
will receive farther notice. Testimony was also introduced, attempting to 
show that she was not a reliable person. Without rehearsing the great 

4 



50 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

amount of testimony introduced for this purpose, very little of which could 
be considered relevant, or would have been admitted before a legal tribunal, 
we would briefly state that the following characteristics of Mrs. B. appeared 
to us to be established ; viz. : — 

That she was mirthful, passionate, sympathetic, beneficent, active, fasci- 
nating, and "fond of caresses; " and when under the influence of passion, 
indiscreet and petulant ; but the testimony fell far short of impeaching her 
character for truthfulness, when speaking under the influence of serious re- 
flection. 

It was also urged that she had not been chaste in her deportment toward 
other men ; and that her " unbridled passions " were the cause of this accu- 
sation. That her temperament was such as to render her a more easy prey 
to the artfulness of the wanton, than many others, was to be strongly inferred 
from her own confessions, as well as from the testimony of others ; but the 
natural inference from this was not to the advantage of the accused. 

Frankness appeared to be a prominent characteristic in her deportment, as 
well as in her testimony, throughout the examination ; and the fact that her 
testimony did not fail to implicate herself in the affair to some extent, gave 
it more weight in the minds of the council than it would have had, had she 
attempted to screen herself entirely from censure. She frankly confessed 
her own guilt, and as persistently charged the accused with being the insti- 
gator of the crime. 

False accusers generally represent themselves innocent. Few, if any, in- 
stances have ever come to our knowledge, in which persons have voluntarily 
exposed their own secret misdeeds solely for revenge, unless they were of 
the most abandoned character prior to the act. 

On the other hand, it is well understood, that the victims of unhallowed 
desire are seldom sought after among those of invincible virtue. The prac- 
ticed eye of the seducer readily discovers the assailable points. The asser- 
tion that the seduced was an easy prey, or even a willing subject, could be 
no excuse, in our opinion, for the seducer. The weaker the virtue in the 
female character, the more sacredly should it be protected by the other sex. 

It was claimed that the testimony of the witness was conflicting and con- 
tradictory. Such was not the case. She made one mistake in regard to a 
date, or rather, she was not certain whether the first time she saw the accused 
was at the time of the Yearly Meeting in June, 1857, or at the time of the 
Quarterly Meeting in the fall of the same year. She also testified to the 
truth of one point, that it was said she had, on a former occasion, evaded ; 
and, were it proper to introduce into our report, the fact referred to, it would 
not appear a matter of surprise that she had formerly evaded the truth 
which she now frankly confessed. Her testimony was clear, explicit, con- 
nected, and pointed ; and she passed the ordeal of a tedious cross-examina- 
tion far better, in our estimation, than did the accused. It is true, many 
questions were put to her on cross-examination, that she could not answer 



THE TRIAL OF KEY. WM, P. MERRILL. 51 

with certainty, and many to which she could give no answer ; but this was no 
matter of surprise, in view of the multitude of questions put, requiring a 
memory seldom or never to be found. She was not the only witness who 
made a mistake, and asked the privilege of correcting it, during the trial. 
A similar one was made and corrected by Eev. J. Stevens, who, as you well 
know, was strongly inclined in Elder Merrill's favor. 

Mistakes may be made by witnesses, but an honest one will not fail to 
correct them when discovered. But it is proper to remark, that Mrs. Bar- 
rows 1 testimony was not taken without, what the council considered strong 
corroborating evidence, which will be set before you in a brief summary be- 
fore we close. 

It was alleged, and considered correct by a portion of the former council, 
that Mrs. Barrows objected to the copies of Nos. 1 and 2, before she knew 
what was in them, unless she wrote them herself. 

Reference is here made to the testimony of Rev. J. Stevens, chairman of 
the former council. In speaking of the proceedings before the former coun- 
cil, he testified, as follows : 

" When Elder Merrill commenced to read No. 1, Mrs. Barrows became en- 
raged and left the room, saying she would not hear such vulgar stuff read. 
It forced itself upon my mind, how she could know the contents before it 
was read." 

An explanation of this may be found in the testimony of Bros. Morris and 
Peering, and in Elder Merrill's " Special Diary," under date of October 
12, 1860, which admitted that she saw the letters at his house, and objected 
to some of them at that time. It will be remembered that the examination 
by the first council, was on the 22d day of- October ; and that the time re- 
ferred to in the testimony of Bros. Morris and Deering was anterior to that, 
and. also, to the time referred to in his diary. 

It was in testimony before the council, that Elder Merrill sent two men 
into the country where Mrs. B . had formerly resided, to collect information 
of her reputation : but as their testimony was not introduced to the council 
after their return, the natural inference was, that nothing was obtained 
against her. 

The means employed by him to obtain testimony against her was, to say 
the least, in some instances of very doubtful propriety. As a sample, we 
quote from the testimony of Mr. S. A. Knight, as follows : 

" Elder Merrill called on me where I was at work, and wanted to know if 
I knew anything about Mr. and, Mrs. Barrows. I replied, I did not. He 
[Elder M.] then asked me how it happened that they were such enemies to 
me. I told him I did not know they were. He then intimated to me that 
they had talked about me— I so understood it," 



52 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

But even under the influence of this method of extorting testimony (for we 
did not consider it any better than extortion), nothing was obtained against 
her, but to the reverse. 

The witness said, " I don't know as I ever heard anything against Mr. 
Barrows or his wife up to this affair." 

So it was in many cases. The testimony was nearly or quite unanimous, 
that Mrs. Barrows had ever been a person of undoubted veracity up to this 
affair. And why not at the time of trial 1 Was there any other cause for 
doubting it than because she had criminated Elder Merrill % If not, why 
should the council consider her a perjured witness 1 It could be on no 
other ground than that of her being an accomplice, to which we shall refer 
hereafter. 

Thus having referred carefully to the testimony on which the accused re- 
lied to impeach the witness who criminated him, it would not be proper to 
pass in silence other testimony and circumstances not yet noticed, tending 
to confirm the evidence against him, and which fastened upon our minds the 
conviction, that the two accusations of seduction and adultery were sus- 
tained. In doing ihis, we feel constrained to say, it was a matter of no 
small surprise to us that a woman possessing such abilities, and occupying 
such position in society as the case before us presents, should venture so 
great familiarity towards a minister of the gospel, who was, at the same 
time, a husband and father ; and that she should persistently besiege him 
with propositions so detestable, without some advances on his part, encourag- 
ing such a course. 

It was claimed that we have an example in history, recorded in the thirty- 
ninth chapter of Genesis ; but it did not appear to us a parallel case. In the 
case before us, the accused was not a servant as in the case of Joseph. His 
position as a minister, being of a more exalted nature than that of a servant, 
would impress with reverential fear, the tendency of which would be to 
check and banish such inclinations in their incipient stages. In other words, 
the mistress would be likely to intrude more readily on the servant than a 
parishioner would on the dignity and piety of the minister. 

Joseph was very reserved. " He hearkened not unto her, to lie by her or to 
be with her." Joseph's mistress preserved the pretended evidence which she 
caught from him, showing that she contemplated mischief and was prepar- 
ing for it. The innocent are generally artless, while the dishonest are usual- 
ly on the alert, and preparing for contest. So it was with Joseph ; and 
when he was discovered he submitted patiently. 

Eld. Merrill's course was so far from being artless, that a degree of shrewd- 
ness was manifested in his movements, very seldom witnessed in any case. 
Assuming the hypothesis of his guilt, what more could he have done to for- 
tify himself than he did 1 Mrs. Barrows, on the other hand, exhibited no 
forethought in preparing for an emergency. She preserved no copies of 
et ters, consulted no counsel, and caught away no garments or other tokens 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 53 

to present in case of a trial. But his course carried in it. to our minds, 
marks of a questionable innocence. His reading those letters and copies in 
such places as he did, thereby giving them an improper notoriety, was not, 
in our opinion, a mark of a pure and sound mind. This fact came to our 
notice on a cross-examination of Elder Merrill by Mr. Barrows ; as follows : 
Question by Mr. Barrows : " What motive had you in reading and exhibit- 
ing those letters and parts of letters at donation meeting and at Warren 
Market — at stores and public houses — at boarding-houses — at work-shops 
and at barber-shops 1 " 

Answer by Elder Merrill : t: To establish truth and righteousness." 
Question by the same : "Do you believe the cause of truth and righteous- 
ness is advanced by reading and presenting those letters in such a manner 1 " 
" Certainly." 

Again : His efforts to secure a trial before a tribunal whose minds had been 
prepossessed in his favor by his own representations (or misrepresentations, 
whichever they might be), and who had acted as his counselors, was by no 
means a favorable feature in the case. He even desired to go out of his 
own denomination for the purpose of securing the full benefit of his prelim- 
inary efforts. 

We would not be understood to say, that all the fonner council had been 
Eld. Merrill's advisers, for such was not the case ; neither would we intimate 
that the gentlemen referred to out of the denomination were not suitable 
persons for the occasion ; for we hold them in very high estimation. But one 
of that council gave us clearly to understand, that he had a pre-formed opin- 
ion, decidedly against Mrs. B.'s testimony. — t: That no juror would allow her 
oath." 

We ask in all candor, if auy man would be allowed a trial before a jury 
who had been his own counselors in the case 1 Should a jury acquit a man 
under such circumstances, he would not be entitled to its full benefit in the 
estimation of the public, as he would be under the wise and righteous pro- 
visions of our statute law. 

We intend no disrespect to the former council by these remarks ; neither 
would we be understood to intimate that they did not decide impartially and 
conscientiously, as the case appeared to them, under the very brief and imper- 
fect presentation of it to their consideration ; but we intend to say, that such 
a course in him was indicative to us of what would be deemed in a legal 
question, a great misdemeanor. 

Shall our laws be more just and equitable than the gospel 1 " Shall mor- 
tal man be more just than God ? " 

We have alluded to the brevity of the first trial in a former remark. 
Xot only did the accused endeavor to avail himself of his previous efforts 
in attempting to secure a council, such as he thought, no doubt, would be 
favorable to him, but he adroitly managed to throw that influence, augment- 



54 DECISION OP THE COUNCIL IN 

ed by the decision of that influential body, before the latter council in such 
manner as to make it available in his favor. This was another great impro- 
priety ; and all improprieties, unless through a want of proper information 
or foresight, are causes of suspicion. It is not considered proper for parties 
in court to disclose to a jury the verdict of a former jury in the same 
case ; but Elder Merrill and his friends, in spite of the expressed wishes of 
the latter council, pressed the decision of the former council, as a matter of 
important testimony. But there was not a perfect unanimity among the 
council and church committee at the time of the first hearing. We found an 
item in the testimony of Rev. J. Stevens, who was chairman of that council, 
as follows : 

" It was agreed not to let it be known that there was any dissension in the 
committee or council." Elder Stevens also stated that " the council came to 
a unanimous conclusion, and the committee unanimously accepted of it ; 
putting in this provision, that if any further evidence came to light, they 
would consider of it."" 

But Bro. C. J. Morris stated that, " One member of the committee dissent- 
ed in part, and another totally ; one not acting at all." Rev. J. Stevens also 
stated that they came to the conclusion arrived at by the first council, on the 
ground " that the witness before us [Mrs. B.] was perjured, and we were 
not at liberty to sustain the charges on such testimony." 

He subsequently stated by way of explanation, as follows : 

"It was contended in the council that we were not at liberty to come to 
any conclusions, only on the strength of the evidence presented by the com- 
plainants, — that we were, not at liberty to judge upon anything but the 
charge brought, — that the witness before us was perjured ; and we were not 
at liberty to sustain the charges on such testimony." We would prefer giv- 
ing the testimony of Elder Stevens in full, but as it would enlarge our report 
beyond the bounds of expediency, we shall only give you a few mere ex- 
tracts. He stated that Elder Merrill called on him for council last February, 
and divulged the affair to him alone. The following quotations are from his 
testimony : 

"He [Elder Merrill] stated he was in trouble, and had come to me for 
counsel, and then divulged to me the facts ; and also the position he occupied 
in relation to Mr. B. and his family. He then read two letters, purporting 
to be copies, and presented the slip in Mrs. B.'s hand writing. He asked me 
how he should manage in the case, saying he wished counsel of an older 
minister than himself. I told him it was sadly to be lamented thai he re- 
turned the original letters ; he ought to have kept them. I advised him to 
put himself on the defense only, — to make no attack upon her. Elder Mer- 
rill proposed going to her husband and the discipline committee. I advised 
him not to do it. I told him it would be safer to do so if he were in posses- 
sion of the original letters. I advised him to wait and see if thero would not 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 55 

be other developments. He then said I had given him the same advice that 
Dr. Dwight and some other one had; I think he used Bro. Strout's name.' 
In answer to a question by Elder Merrill, the witness replied, " My impres- 
sion is you said you had consulted Dr. Dwight." 

The witness, in speaking of a conversation between him and Mr. Barrows, 
testified as follows : 

" He [Mr. B.J asked me my advice in reference to a divorce. I did not 
give it. I told him I coincided in his opinion that the letters, together with 
corroborating circumstances, were sufficient to convict her of an attempt at 
seduction, and to gain a divorce. I told him that no juror would allow her 
oath under the threat of vengeance she had made. * * * * We 
then went into the council. He [Mr. B.] knew I read the letters. I don't 
know whether Mr. B. knew that Elder Merrill had been to consult with me 
on the matter. I supposed he did. I suggested Rev. C. 0. Libby to Elder 
Merrill as a good man to be on the council. I think you [Elder M.] con- 
ferred with me about Bro. Newell. Elder Merrill said he should prefer to 
have Dr. Dwight, but the brethren objected." 

It was further shown by his testimony and that of others, that the first 
council altered their report after it was made out and presented to the par- 
ties, and another report was made after the council had dissolved, to which 
all of the council did not agree. The following question was put by Mr. 
Barrows to the chairman of that council ; viz. : 

" At whose suggestion was the alteration made in that report, after the 
council had dissolved % " 

The chairman (Rev. J. Stevens) did not answer. 

We have intimated that the case was but partially presented to the former 
council; for such was the testimony before us. But the fault was not at- 
tributed to them. Mr. Barrows, having been a firm friend to Elder Merrill up 
to that time, and having been kept in ignorance of the affair until only four 
days before the sitting of the council, and then having Elder Merrill's own 
representation of it first, which, of course, was calculated to prepossess his 
mind in his (Elder M.'s) favor, to the prejudice of Mrs. Barrows, (who was 
then in Boston), added to which was an opinion from one of the council in ad- 
vance, made no particular effort to bring facts to their notice. He merely 
suggested that there might possibly be an alteration in some one or more 
of the letters, and left it. Hence the necessity in the opinion of a portion of 
the church, for another council. Mr. Barrows subsequently explained his 
position before the first council as follows : " When I was first informed of 
the affair, my wife was in Boston, and I only had Elder Merrill's story, and 
the copies and letters, as he presented them, with his own explanations. I 
assented to the opinion expressed by Elder Stevens with the qualifyirg phrase, 
' If the letters are all true.' The developments before the first council, to- 
gether with the statements of my wife, led me to the conclusion that a fur- 
ther examination was necessary." 



56 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

In relation to the examination, Rev. J. Stevens testified to us as follows: 
" The only charge was brought by her [Mrs. B.], and she was the princi- 
pal witness. In[answer to questions relating to the time that council was 
employed in the examination, Elder Merrill stated that they met at 1 o'clock, 
P. M. He said they were about two hours at tea, and adjourned at 12 o'clock 
that night. He expressed some dissatisfaction with the questions, said he 
did not see their bearing upon the case, and considered them of no conse- 
quence." 

Could the latter council have found sufficient proof that Mrs. Barrows was 
a perjured witness, their report would probably have been similar to that of 
the first ; but, as we have before stated, no satisfactory evidence of that fact 
was produced. Neither did we believe that her testimony could be im- 
peached in any court. 

But we cannot, injustice to truth and plain dealing, stop here. We feel it 
to be our duty to bring to your notice other facts that came before us, and 
facts that we deem important in the case. On Wednesday, Nov. 28th, Elder 
Merrill requested the council to adjourn over till the next Monday, assigning 
as a reason, that an important witness, whom he desired to obtain, and who 
resided twelve miles distant, was sick, and an adjournment, as he desired, 
would give him an opportunity to procure either the witness or his deposi- 
tion. The council adjourned ; but on their return, heard no more about the 
witness or the deposition ; Elder Merrill had been to Amesbury, Mass.,' to 
procure rebutting testimony in relation to an old affair in that place. Wheth- 
er it was necessary for him to keep his method of defense a secret, the 
council did not attempt to decide. He had a legal, and perhaps a moral, 
right to do so if he chose. But whether " conscious innocence " does not 
breathe openly, as well as*" strongly," was a question in our minds. 

Another inquiry, and one which we deemed important, was, — If Elder M. 
discovered any improprieties in Mrs. Barrows at his first acquaintance with 
her, why did he not conduct himself with greater caution and reserve toward 
her 1 His diary represents that he was suspicious of her at the outset. Un- 
der date of Oct. 23, 1857, we found the following entry : 

" Got letters from Portland and Manchester about preaching ; was to 
Portland in the eve and stopped all night to see committee at Barrows was 
requested to preach for indefinite time, did not like the conduct of his wife." 

The phrases "at Barrows " and "did not like the conduct of his wife," 
were written heavier and wiih darker ink than the rest; the words " at Bar- 
rows " were interlined, and the whole indicated to us that it was the work 
of an after-thought. But if it was a bona fide entry, and he did really discov- 
er such improprieties in Mrs. B. at that time, the question occurred to us, 
Why did he not exercise common prudence, and keep away from her? Why 
did he make that house a place of frequent resort, and that, too, in Mr. Bar- 
rows's absence, and when Mrs. B. was alone?. It appeared that on the 1st 
of September, 1858, Elder Merrill's wife being absent on a visit, he was tak- 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 57 

irig his meals at Mr. Barrows', but lodging at his own house, until Mr. B . 
went into the country on business, when Elder Merrill came the first night of 
Mr. B.'s absence, and spent the night at Mr. B.'s house. 

On this point Elder Merrill's testimony corresponds with his diary. Mr. 
Barrows proposed to him the following question : 

" When did my wife make the first advances toward you 1 " 

Ans., by Elder Merrill: — " April 7th, 1859, was the first direct advances." 

From this answer, it appeared to us implied that she had made indirect ad- 
vances before, or that he would be so understood. 

Question. " Why did you not inform me 1 " 

Answer. " I thought the beast might be ashamed of it, and behave her- 
self, and it would be better than to kick up such a bobbery." 

Question. " Why did not you inform me when you received the first letter 
from my wife r " 

Answer. " For the same reason I have given." 

Question. " Suppose your wife had sent letters to me in that manner; 
would you not have desired me to inform you 1" 
' Answer. " Can't suppose any such thing ; my wife is a decent woman." 

Question. " To how many did you read the letters, before you read them 
to me ? " 

Answer. " Couldn't tell ; I read them to several." 

Question. ' : Had you any reason to suppose I was not a friend to you 1" 

Answer. " I had not, until about the time this matter came out." 

Question. " What was your motive in fastening the door of your room 
the night you staid at our house, when I was gone into the country, Sept. 
1st, 1858 1 " 

Answer. "Protection." [It is proper to remark here that Elder M. had 
stated that he fastened his door on that occasion ; but it was disputed on the 
other side, as there was no lock or fastening on the door, and as Merrill 
at ^another time admitted that he left the door a little open.] 

Question. " From whom V 

Answer. " Any annoyance from any one." 

Question. " Whom in particular 1 ]" 

Answer. :: When I lock my doors, generally, I don't have any particular 
one in view to protect myself against. I had some suspicions, at that time, 
that that beast might come to my door. Some one came to my door that 
night, and I think it was Mrs. B. That is my reason for refusing to stay 
there another night." 

Question. ' : Being suspicious that my wife would come to your room, 
would it not have been prudent to have gone to your own house, as I was 
absent, and thereby have avoided the temptation V 

Answer. " I think it would have been a good deal better if I had never 
entered your house. Mrs, Barrows was very urgent for me to stay there 
nights. She insinuated that I had somebody down there with me nights, 



58 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

"which induced me to go to your house, though I preferred to stay at home. 
I found the circumstances such that it would make hut little difference where 
I staid ; there would he somebody throwing out, and so I concluded to stop 
there one night." 

Question. " Why did you come to my house the first night after I left V' 
Answer. " I don't know as it was the first night after you left." 
Question. " Have or not you been into our house since the time that you 
say my wife embraced you so warmly V 

Answer. " I have been into your house several times since your wife em- 
braced me, I think." 

Question. Did you think it prudent V 

Answer. " I have felt when I was there as though I were in some dan- 
ger." 

Elder Merrill admitted to others that he was frequently at the house of 

Mr. B. ; but he had represented it as unavoidable, cr very necessary. 

We give an item or two of testimony on this point. Mrs. Small, of Gray, 

stated that " Elder Merrill said he had business with the woman's husband, 

that frequently called him to the house." 

Dr. Dwight stated as follows : " He [Elder Merrill] told of the difficulty in 
consequence of his connection with Mr. Barrows. I advised him to stay 
away from the house." 

The business with Mr. Barrows, referred to, was. that he was treasurer 
of the Parish, and Elder M. also purchased his groceries of him, as he was 
then in trade ; but the council could see no cause in this for Elder Merrill to 
make his house a place of frequent calls, as Mr. Barrows was seldom found 
in the house, but in the store, which was a more convenient place for Elder 
Merrill to call for money or groceries. Notwithstanding his pretensions 
to have been assailed by her on the 7th of April, 1859, and that she then 
threatened him if he did not comply, and that on the 9th of July following, 
she commenced addressing him by letter, yet, on the 24th of December of 
the same year, he was so intimate as to be alone with Mrs. Barrows, at her 
own house, and also to ride with her, the same day. His own testimony on 
this point was as follows : 

" Letter No. 1 was received July 9th, 1859. ***** 

Letter No. 2 was put into my hand by Mrs. Barrows, at their house, in the 
forenoon, Dec. 21th, 1859. The day I received the second letter, Mrs. B. 
begged of me to return the letters," Mrs. Barrows admitted that she wrote 
and delivered two letters, as just stated, but not the letters then produced by 
Elder Merrill, or letters containing such language. She also stated that she 
never saw them after they were delivered to Elder M. 

Mrs. B.'s testimony on this point, as brought out on cross-examination by 
Elder Merrill, was as follows: 

Question. " At what time did you write the second letter 1" 
Answer. " I don't know." 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 59 

Question. " Did Gustavus Smith bring it to me T' 

Answer. " He did not." 

Question. " How did it come 1" 

Answer. " I handed it to you in the parlor." 

Question. "Do you remember ~ of riding into the city with me and my 
wife that day ?" 

Answer. " Yes ; I took our horse and sleigh, and rode down with you." 

We give you further selections from his testimony, as illustrative of our 
conclusions, and showing either remarkable evasiveness, or a great deficiency 
of recollection. In answer to questions proposed by Mr. Barrows, which, for 
the sake of condensing, we do not insert, Elder M. stated as follows : 

•' Don't know but I can mesmerize some persons. I have affected one or 
two. Don't know as I ever did more. I think I' stated that I had affected 
one or two persons to some extent. They were not perfectly under my con- 
trol." 

Question. " To what extent were they under your control 1" 

Answer. " That depends considerably upon the definition of terms ; one 
person I think I had tolerably under my control, — so as to see ' across the 
river.' I have said of a girl employed in my family, that I thought she was 
tolerably under my control." 

Question. " Did you join tbe church in Biddeford by letter 1" 

Answer. " I could'nt tell ; I think I did have a letter." 

Question. " Did you agree with Walton for him to state that he paid you 
a larger sum for the horse than he really did pay V 

Answer. "I don't remember whether I did or not; I can't answer that 
question." ******* **** 

Question " Have or not you informed some person that you had visited a 
house of ill-fame in disguise, since you have been a preacher V 

Answer. " I don't remember of ever saying so to anybody." 

Question. "Did you call at my house in April, 1859, after you left your 
wife in Amesbury V 

Answer. " I don't remember ; my diary does not say that ; it speaks for 
itself." 

Question. " Did you say to my wife at that time that you had thought 
much of her in your absence ; and that you loved her, and always should '?" 

Answer. " I don't remember of saying so." 

Question. " Did you kiss my wife at that time, and say, 'we must 
part 1 ' " 

Answer. " I don't remember of kissing your wife, and saying we must 
part." 

The query forced itself upon us why he did not peremptorily deny the 
charges contained in these questions, -why he did not say he had not informed 
any one that he had visited a house of ill-fame ; and that he never had the 
conversation with Mrs. B., referred to ? But his testimony did not corres- 



60 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

pond in many things, with that of others. We give a few instances. He 
testified in relation to his diary, as follows : 

" Had a pocket diary with me [at Mr. J. Small's, at Gray]. I am not sure 
whether it was in my skirt pocket, or in my valise. I have the impression 
that my diary was in the valise. I used my diary at Bro. Small's on Satur- 
day night; I wrote in it then with a pencil ; I think I put it in the valise. * 
* * * * My recollections are indistinct about the diary. 
Think I put it in the valise Saturday night. It was put in either Saturday 
night, or Sunday morning. * * * * I don't generally carry 
my diary in my breast pocket ; I think if I put it in my pocket Saturday 
night, it was in my skirt pocket. * * * I think. I filled up the 
diary with the doings that day, on Saturday night ; the doings of that day 
only. * * * I did not enter anything in my diary on Saturday 
night but what pertained to that day." 

We next give Mrs. Small's testimony in relation to the diary transaction : 
" I saw him [Elder Merrill] with a pocket diary in his hands the Saturday 
evening before. He wrote in it with a pencil. * * * I think he 
put the diary into his breast pocket en Saturday night, after he wrote in it ; 
did not see any letters but the two named, or any diary after the fire. * 
* * * When I took the coat, [after it had been on the fire] the 
bottom of the pocket retained the square form, shaped like the diary that I 
giw him put into it on Saturday night." Mrs. Small also stated at the time 
of giving the foregoing testimony, that " When Elder Merrill was writing in 
his diary on Saturday night, he asked his wife what he was doing last Wednes- 
day. After a moment's thought, he said, ' 0, that was the day Mr. Peck was 
at our house.' His wife replied in the affirmative, and he then proceeded to 
write in his diary." 

Mrs. Small has since stated as follows: "When he had done writing,-he 
put it in his breast pocket. I am sure of that. I saw him put it in his 
pocket." 

Our attention was called to two points in the foregoing testimony, in which 
there were apparent or real contradictions. The first was in relation to where 
he generally carried his diary, and the other, in regard to his making entries 
in it for that day only. If he generally carried it in his skirt pocket, 
why did the bottom of the breast pocket retain such a form as stated 
with certainty by Mrs. Small 1 It was urged that letters would not give it 
such a form, because they were neither as wide or as hard and compact as 
the diary. It was observed that he was quite inclined to think that he did 
not put it in his breast pocket, while Mrs. Small was sure he did. He was 
still more certain that he made no entry in it for any other day but Satur- 
day ; but it was asked, Why did he inquire what he was doing on Wednes- 
day, and after recollecting, proceed to write in it again ? 

But there were other items of the same character to which our attention 
was called. In Mrs. Merrill's testimony we find the following item : 



THE TRIAL OF IlEV. WM, P. MERRILL, 61 

"We were in bed when my husband received the first letter from Mrs. B. 
The girl, M. E. Libby, brought it up to him after 9 o'clock, P. M. * * * 
My husband sat up in the bed and broke open the letter. He then got up 
and went into the study. Next morning, I teased him about it. He turned 
it off, saying it was nonsense." 

But we noticed the following items of testimony on this point, from others. 
Mr. James W. Stevens stated as follows : 

" I called to see Mrs. Randall after this matter came out. She said she 
asked Bro. Merrill to tell her what was in the letter, — the one that Gustavus 
Smith carried to him. He said it was about young converts. That did not 
satisfy her ; the letter still troubled her. She went to Bro. Merrill before 
meeting one night, and asked him the contents of that letter. He began 
some story, and continued it nearly to the meeting. On being pressed, h e 
said it was nonsense." 

Gustavus Smith, on cross-examination, stated as follows : 
" I have heard Mrs. Randall speak of Bro. Merrill's evading her question 
about the letter, and saying it was about young people." 

But we presume we have given as much testimony on these points as you 
will expect of us. In fact, we have given more than we should have given, 
had it not been for the fact that Ave were required to reject Mrs. B.'s testi- 
mony because it was said she had stated to some one that Elder Merrill did 
not get into her bed, and then testified before the council that he did. We 
did not censure Elder Merrill for not communicating the contents of the let- 
ters he received from Mrs. B , to others, except her husband. Neither did 
we reject Mrs. B.'s testimony, because she was unwilling, at first, to have 
the whole truth come out. 

But we did not see any good reason for Elder Merrill's keeping the matter 
from Mrs. Barrows' husband so long, and even after he had revealed it to 
others. As we have before shown, he asserts that Mrs. B. assailed him on 
the 7th of April, 1859, and on the 9th of July following, commenced to as- 
sault him with letters, and yet Mr. Barrows had no knowledge of it till Oct. 
18, 1860. Thus it is shown by Elder Merrill's own admission that, for more 
than a year and a half, this improper and unlawful transaction was going on 
with Mrs. B. and Elder M., Avhile her unsuspecting husband was cherish- 
ing Elder M. as a minister of the gospel. And this was not all. During 
this time he had communicated to others the secrets that belonged to Mr. 
Barrows only. On the 24th of Jan., 1860, he communicated it to Rev. L. D. 
Strout ; on the 1st day of Feb., to Rev. J. Stevens ; on the 17th. to Rev. Br. 
Dwight; and in Aug., to Rev. 0. W. Smith. He had also communicated to 
B. D. Peck, Esq., if no others, before it came to the knowledge of Mr. Bar- 
rows. Whatever might have been his motives, this course was decidedly 
wrong, in our judgment, and carried in itself the elements of suspicion. 

We have said that Mr. Barrows was the only person, if perhaps, we ex- 
cept Elder M mil's w ife, who ought to have known the affair, unless he be- 



62 DECISION OP THE COUNCIL IN 

came an enemy to Elder Merrill, which we had good reason to believe was 
not the case. 

The manner in which Elder Merrill treated many questions proposed to 
him, especially by Mrs. B., indicated a determination to repel investigation, 
and avoid scrutiny. He had occupied a great amount of time in question- 
ing Mrs. B., and she had yielded to a very thorough examination ; but when 
she asked him an appropriate question, it was insultingly repelled. We give 
an instance as recorded in our minutes. Mrs. B. asked the following ques- 
tion : 

" Do you recollect anything that occurred at the circle, Sept. 29th. 1859 V 

Ans., by Elder Merrill. " I shall not answer that beast." • 

Mrs. B.'s husband repeated the question, and received from Elder M. the 
following reply : 

" I do not know when the circle came." 

The time when the circle was held, was distinctly stated in the question, 
and he was not requested to state when it was, but to state whether he re- 
membered what occurred at that time. 

On reference to the quotations we have introduced from his special diary* 
you will find under the date that Mrs. B. referred to in the foregoing ques- 
tion that Elder M. says he " took tea at Mr. Barrows." He also states that 
" the circle was full," etc. This was the very circle, and the very time that 
Mrs. B. referred to in her question ; and why did not Elder Merrill answer 
that question 1 If he would " not answer that beast," why not answer the 
question to her husband, so that the council might not be left to infer that it 
alluded to something that would implicate himself 1 Was it a familiar word 
that might " lead " to something else 1 If not, why evade it 1 

Tho foregoing is not referred to as a solitary instance, but as a sample of 
his course throughout the examination. To us it betrayed a very guarded 
position, such as might be calculated to conceal the truth. 

Pursuing Elder Merrill's defense, we are under the necessity of referring 
again to his very singular diary. It consisted of what he termed his " regu- 
lar diary " kept in small books, and also of a " special diary," kept on small 
pieces of paper, and pinned together. On critical examination, much was 
discovered in both of a doubtful character ; a full explanation of which 
could only be given by presenting the original in this connection, and sub- 
mitting it to personal examination. 

We have before alluded to the entry under date of Oct. 23, 1857, which 
you will doubtless recollect. We now refer to another one in his " regular 
diary," purporting to be made Oct. 18th, 1857 : 

" Preached twice in Portland — good time — good meeting in the eve — 
Stopped at Bro. Cobb's — found some too bold— God have mercy on them." 

The first part of this entry was written with pale ink, but the following, — 

<< found some too bold — God have mercy on them." was written with dark 

ink and looked as though it were put in afterwards. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 63 

The question was, — Did he find them too % bold at Bro. Cobb's, or did he 
make a mistake in fitting up his diary for the occasion, and make an en- 
try under Bro. Cobb's name, that he intended to go under Bro. Barrows' 
name 1 Could you see the diary as we saw it, you could judge of it as you 
might think proper. 

As Elder Merrill appeared to rely much upon his " special diary," as cor- 
roborating testimony in his defense, we extract as much from it as our limits 
will properly allow, giving a fair sample of its contents. We feel assured 
that a careful examination of the whole would result no more favorably to 
him than will that of the selections we have made. 



SELECTIONS FROM « SPECIAL DIARY." 



" April 7th, 1859. Called into brother Barrows', and spent a few minutes 
as was insulted by Mrs. B." 

But, as we quote more largely from the entry under this date in a subse- 
quent part of our report, we pass to the next entry. 

Under date of "July 10," [1859,] is the following entry : 
" Got an anonymous letter last night from Mrs. Barrows, I have no doubt. 
0, the snares of hell ! * * * * I will keep the vile letter as evidence of 
her guilt. If the slut goes any further, this may save me, at least, and show 
with what beasts I have fought ! * * * Although innocent of even a 
familiar word to lead to any such feeling, perhaps although it is a risk not 
immediately to expose the wretch — yet it will separate the family and hurt 
the church and make a great stir and I shall be unjustly accused by some 
yet on the whole I think I will retain the letter and wait and see the salva- 
tion of God." * * * 

Some of the foregoing expressions appeared a little too strong for our 
faith. But few could say as much— " innocent of even a familiar word to 
lead to any such feelings " ! ! It occurred to us, that we heard him use 
words in a public assembly, such as might lead to that very thing. 

We quote still further from his diary : 

" Sept. 29, [1859.] To day took tea at Mr. Barrows'— Mrs. B. seemed to 
be quiet, and I think she feels ashamed of herself. * * * * The circle 
was full and very good— some new ones joined." * * * 

This will be referred to hereafter. We quote further. 

" Dec. 24. Got an anonymous letter from Mrs. Barrows — put into my 
hand when at the house for money in the A. M. God what shall I do. I 



64 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

am pursued by this wretched woman — It seems she is determined to destroy 
me. After my wife and I had Barrows horse and sleigh and Mrs. B. wanted 
to go with us, we consented and when I consented to carry horse back she 
seemed sorry and begged me to return her letters, &c. * * * * 0, why 
am I thus pursued % 0. is this the reward for all my labors of love 1 Truly, 
as David said, Why have [they] rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for 
my love 1 But do thou for me, God, the Lord for thy name's sake deliver 
thou me for I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me. I 
am tossed as a locust. My knees are week through fasting. Keep me 
Lord my God. save me according to thy mercy, that they may know that 
that this thy hand, and that thou Lord, hast done it." * * * * 

" Dec. 27. Gave Mrs. B. her letters,* and she tore them in bits in my 
presence. But thank God she did not notice the piece cut out. 0. I am 
afraid she will not keep her word. Who can trust a woman when the devil is 
in her— I hasted away as from a deep pit. * * * * Jan. 20, I860. Call- 
ed to leave a receipt for some money at Mr. Barrows'. He was not in. The 
she devil began to upbraid me for not coming to see her. * * * * The 
storm seems to come near, and I must meet it " * * * * 

Under date of Feb. 3, we found a lengthy entry, from which we extract 
the following : 

« * * * * This morning I read the copy of the letters Mrs. B. sent, 
to wife, and she was dreadfully astonished, and said again and again, 0, what 
a devil — what a devil to pursue a man so. * * * * * * * * rp he 
girl came in and said she would tell me what she heard at the circle last 
week, that made her feel so bad. She said Mrs. Barrows told her up stairs 
that wife was jealous of me — that she, Mrs. B., had been watching me more 

than a year, and that I was intimate with Mrs. M n. * * * * She 

[Mrs. B.] said she believed it, and would give a hundred dollars, if she could 
think I did not go with Mrs. M n." 

We extract the following from an entry dated 

"Feb. 9th. Wife and I made a few calls this P. M., and went to circle 
at Capt. Bicker's. Mrs. B. was there — seemed very affable with the men. 
The slut seemed embarrased some. * * * After we came home, our 
.girld told us that, soon after we went away, in the P. M., Mrs. B. came to 

our house and told her she was sorry she told that I went with Mrs. M n, 

but she believed it — and asked my girl to forgive her. When the girl asked 
why she did not tell me, she said she did once, but got no satisfaction. The 
girl then asked why she did not tell her husband her suspicions. She said 
she would not for the world— her husband would take her head off. He had 
not seen anything, and thought Mr. Merrill to be a very good man. Said 
she believed I was with Mrs. M. when I went out of town — but then she did 

* This, she peremptorily denied. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 65 

not blame Mrs. M. for wanting to caress me ; for, said Mrs. B., you know he 
is so interesting, she did not blame her a might — said she was sorry she told 
her anything, left. * * * * Lord help me to steer my bark past those 
ugly breakers. If the cape is doubled safely, without loss or wound to the 
blessed cause, such abominable creatures shall have a wide berth hereafter. 

"■' Feb. 17th. Asked advice of Dr. Dwight, and showed him the letter, and 
also the ans. I purposed to send. He thought it the safest way, and advised 
so, and told me to trust in God who would overrule— This counsel seemed 
encouraging — God bless him and save me from this beast. Took a copy of 
the letter which I concluded to send, and of the confession which I wanted 
her to sign. And now, God, to Tbee I fly. save me from this hour, and 
afterward receive me to glory. [The following was presented on separate 
sheets :] Aug. 5, in P. M. an insulting note was handed me in a sealed en- 
velope by brother Wilds. The note was from Mrs. Barrows, I have no 
doubt — see diary. * * * * But 0, the boilings of anger in my heart— 
the struggle and prayer for grace to conquer. I went through the sermon 
by God's help, and came off in this hand to hand fight, a victor. Thank 
God I did not sbow the note to wife until the next day, when I got a let- 
ter from the P. 0. from the same she devil, containing a dollar bill, both of 
which I then read to wife in presence of Lizzie Libby, as her name was men- 
tioned in the letter. In the eve, as wife and [I] rode round the cape, we 
talked over these awful plots, and thought, of all men, none of whom we 
had knowledge, ever was so persecuted. We talked of former battles— of 
God's help in time past, and tried to feel that he would help us still. But 
the storm gathering, how to stand was a question, and together resolved still 
to trust in God. Sometimes we almost decided to purchase some island or 
go into the woods and make a home secluded from men, and let the 
world go to hell ; and then we talked of the judgment — would God accept 
us if we skulked away from the light. Then we would take back the thought 
of running from our enemies, and resolve to stand at our posts, and die, if 
our death was called for, in the thickest of the storm. * * * * But 0, 
what a height of christian manhood is attained, when men can pray for those 
that despitefully use and evil entreat them. We feared that we were babes 
in this respect, for we had to admit, that we felt the workings of that spirit 
that would command fire on our enemies sooner than pardon ; and so we 
were humbled. Lord God, can we attain to such a height % 0, help us and 
forgive us our want of forgiveness W. P. M." 

But, perhaps we have quoted more from this "special diary" than we 
ought, in justice to the intended limits of this report. 

It might be a fault of ours in not attaching to it a sufficient importance, as 
corroborative of the statements of Elder Merrill, and sustaining the impeach- 
ment of Mrs. B. ; but we assign the following, as our reasons : 

As we have before remarked, its style corresponded with the letters Nos. 1 

5 



66 DECISION OP THE COUNCIL IN 

and 2, alleged to have been altered, and largely forged, and possibly for the 
same purpose. In the second place, it indicated a copiousness of journalizing. 
not exhibited by him in other matters. Thirdly, there was sufficient evidence 
of alterations and additions in it to show that an afterthought had something to 
do with them. And fourthly, it expressed a degree of piety and holy breath- 
ing far in advance of his life and practices. It also exhibited to our minds, a 
strange, heterogeneous compound, never blending in the heart of a truly de- 
voted servant of Christ. There was also a want of definiteness, amounting in 
some instances, to inconsistency. One instance of this was in his " special 
diary," under the date of Oct. 12, 1860. It read as follows ; viz.: 

" Last night had a dream of snakes ; think I shall meet an enemy some 
how soon. Just before noon wife said as she had been out she met Mrs. 
Barrows and she spoke to her and wanted to have some talk with her and 
fixed upon 2 P.M. to meet her at my house. At 2 she came, and I was 
w r here I overheard by arrangement with wife. Mrs. B. began by wanting to 
see some of the letters. Wife showed them. She denied some portions of 
them, and denied also to wife's face that she wife opened any of them first," 
etc. 

For our part, we were unable to comprehend what was meant by all this. 
It showed, also, on examination, that it was written in great haste, and under 
the influence of excitement. This was not the only instance of the kind. ' 

Another query in our minds, was whether Elder Merrill would "scribble" 
s-uch matter upon little pieces or " scraps " of paper, which might accidental- 
ly fall into the hands of his wife, or some other person. According to his 
own account, he began this special diary April 7th, 1859, and dared not let 
his wife know about the matter until Feb. 2, 1860. Hence he must have 
been exceedingly cautious, to have these small scraps of paper kept from 
bis wife during all this time. 

There were entries, also, in his regular diary, not proper to be seen by his 
wife, if he wished to keep it a secret from her. Where was that kept, 
that she did not get sight of it 1 If kept from her, why was she not suspi- 
cious 1 Was it usual for him to keep his diary secreted from herl These 
questions are suggestive of impressions made upon our minds, while looking 
into this intricate affair, with a desire to arrive at the truth, let it fall upon 
whom it might. To substantiate our position upon this point, we quote 
again from his special diary, as follows : 

" April 7th, 1857. Called into Bro. Barrows and spent a few minutes, as 
was insulted by Mrs. B. She began by complaining of coldness on the part 
of her husband, and said she had nobody to love and caress her. * * * 
and rising from her seat suddenly threw her arms around me. I had to use 
some violence to get away. ***** My poor wife ! If she was 
well, I would lay it all before her; but I am afraid she would sink with anx- 
iety. ***** Apr. 22. After getting home, made some calls, and met 



THE TRIAL OP REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 67 

Mrs, B., who seemed angry with me, and said I had somebody else that I 
thought more of than I did of her. * * * * July 10th. Got an 
anonymous letter last night from Mrs. Barrows, I have no doubt. 0, the 
snares of hell ! Poor wife ! I dare not tell even her. 0, I wish she was 
well, that I could unburden these plots, and have her to help me bear up 
under them. But I fear she would die if she knew how I was tormented. 
***** Dec. 24. * * * * 0, I can not bear all 
this alone — would my dear wife, thou wert well, then would thus would I 
divide my sorrows. * * * * Feb. 3, [I860.] Last night, after 
wife and I retired, I told her all that had transpired, just as it was, as near as 
I could. Poor soul! lam afraid it will injure her in her health. But she 
rejoiced that I had told, for she felt, she said, that I had something weighing 
me down." 

If the foregoing is correct, these scraps of diary must have cost him a 
great deal of care to keep them from his wife and everybody else, for so 
long a time. Ten months (lacking five days) he had been under the neces- 
sity of guarding them. Had they fallen into his wife's hands by accident, 
the shock would have been much greater than to have him communicate it 
to her. But were they prepared to meet an emergency, the case would be 
different. 

We have before intimated that Elder Merrill's course before the council 
was not characterized by that openness and sincerity becoming a Christian 
minister. 

We further remark that, throughout the trial, he manifested a spirit de- 
cidedly captious and severe. His deportment towards all such as ventured 
to doubt his innocence, was that of one full of pent up vengeance. The 
grossness and severity of his language did not indicate the spirit of the gos- 
pel in the heart. He treated his opponents as though it were one of the 
greatest crimes to question his purity. We could see no cause for such 
conduct, neither could we accord to it one particle of the spirit of the gos- 
pel, under any circumstance. It appeared to us more like the temper of one 
forsaken of God, and left to the dictates of a depraved mind. 

In his closing argument, none that displeased him escaped his sarcasm and 
detraction. Among the number we have to reckon several of the most 
worthy members of our denomination, and of society. 

Saying nothing of his abuse of the complainant, we remark that Rev?. 
John Chaney and L. D. Strout, Bros. William Burr, C. J. Morris, and Rufus 
Deering, and Sister Abby Phinney, were held forth in particular, as objects 
of extreme contempt. It seemed to us a desperate case, that could not be 
sustained without demolishing the reputation of such as can only be tra- 
duced for acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience in a faithful 
and honest expression of the truth. 

We give a few instances of his abuse as substantially correct. Speaking 
of Rev. J. Chaney, he said he had " poped it and bishoped it for forty 
.years, and has now come to lay his jaws to m* before he sleeps in death." 



68 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

He said [Rev. L. D.] Strout was a " small thing " — that he " would go out 
of a small hole " — " he supposed I was in the bight, and intended to sup- 
plant me " — " look at the character of such a man — the course of a coward 
and sneak." 

He referred to Bro. William Burr as having the '*■ meanness to help Mr. Bar- 
rows in this matter ;" and said that, " at the Yearly Meeting Burr thought it 
would be good time to give me a blow for an old grudge." 

He accused Bro. Morris of improprieties in amusements, and (( of trying to 
reform a woman that God Almighty could not reform," and of taking things 
improperly, and of maliciously pursuing ministers — saying, " He thinks him- 
self God Almighty." 

He accused Bro. Deering of being disposed to criminate him — of " shed- 
ding crocodile tears " — of being " a snake in the grass," " a base liar," &c. 
He said " Abby Phinney came to me with smiles, for letters, and then tried 
to ruin me by obtaining evidence against me." (This was fully refuted, — 
proved false.) In fact, all who testified favorably to the previous reputa- 
tion of Mrs, Barrows, were attacked in a most shameful manner. Much of 
the language used was too vile and indecent to rehearse. 

We considered his abuse of Mr. Barrows as highly improper, and with- 
out provocation. Mr. Barrows believed him guilty of a flagrant wrong, by 
which the sacred and dear relation of husband and wife had been morally 
if not legally annihilated. Who would not feel deeply injured under similar 
circumstances 1 

But in what would he have us consider Mr. Barrows' crime to consist 1 
It must be in one of two assumptions, either that he had entered into a con- 
spiracy with Mrs. B. to ruin him, or that he had conceived the idea inde- 
pendently, and had induced Mr?. B. to testify against him under some threat 
or promise other than a fair and honorable motive. 

If there were such collusion or inducement, it was not made to appear to 
the council. Mrs. Barrows' testimony on that point, which may be found in 
its proper place, abundantly denied the charge. She expressed, in a profu- 
sion of tears, her premonition of the sad consequences to her that must fol- 
low the investigation. It was evident to our minds that she did not expect 
the matter would take so wide a range when she first intimated it to Mr. 
Deering. She was not fully aware of the responsibility incumbent on the 
church in exercising a wholesome and thorough discipline. But she said, 
now it was out, if she " must say anything about it," she would " tell the 
truth." 

When he was confronted by the principal witness, the occasion was strik- 
ing. The witness, many times, charged him with the crime, insisting that he 
knew it to be so, and pressing it upon him in the strongest terms ; referring 
to times and places, and other circumstances ; and in no instance of the 
kind did he categorically deny it. His replies invariably were, not by pro- 
testing his own innocence, but by a criminating expression in relation to the 
witness. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 69 

The question occurred to our minds several times, if Elder Merrill is in- 
nocent, why does he not, when the witness confronts him with declarations 
of his guilt so pointed and forcible, as forcibly and unequivocally deny them 1 
We looked for him to do it, but we neve£ heard the expected denials of the 
crime. 

We have before stated that the defense of Elder Merrill depended entirely 
upon the impeachment of Mrs. Barrows' testimony. The evidence introdu- 
ced for that purpose may be briefly summed up, as follows : 

1. The letters or copies of letters claimed to have been sent by Mrs. 
Barrows to Elder Merrill. 

2. Elder Merrill's diary as confirmatory of the letters and of his truth- 
fulness and innocence. 

3. The testimony and verdict of a former council in his favor. 

4. Oral testimony relating to the character and reliability of the witness. 
On the first point we have shown that we had no original letters before us, 

and that no satisfactory cause was assigned by Elder Merrill for their de- 
struction. 

We again quote from " Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, p. 724, sec. 564: 
" If, on the production of the instrument, it appears to have been altered, it is 
incumbent on the party offering it in evidence, to explain this appearance. Every 
alteration on the face of a written instrument detracts from its credit, and 
renders it suspicious ; and this suspicion, the party claiming under it is bound 
to remove." 

In a previous quotation from the same author, we have brought to your 
notice the established principle of law and justice, that the destruction or sup- 
pression of evidence is a sufficient cause for a presumption against the party 
that ought to produce it. We quote further from the section first introduced, 
as follows : " The general rule is, ' Omnia prcesumuntur contra spoliator -em. .' 
His conduct is attributed to his supposed knowledge that the truth would 
have operated against him." We are free to admit that had it been made 
clear to our minds, that Elder Merrill had exercised clue care, and had there 
been no suspicious circumstances attending the destruction of the letters, we 
should have felt at liberty to waive the general rule ; but the circumstances 
attending the transaction, as admitted by himself as well as set forth by col- 
lateral testimony, were such, in our opinion, as to bring it clearly within the 
general rule. In support of this position, we refer you to the testimony and 
to the drawing and explanation at the close of this report. In order to ap- 
preciate our views, it will be necessary for you to test our theory by some 
experiments, such as the case naturally suggests. But we shall not feel 
that we have done justice to our own views of the affair, unless we present 
it in a condensed statement. 

You will bear in mind that we are now speaking of the burning of the let- 
ters. Elder Merrill had presented to a former council five letters from Mrs. 
Barrows to himself, and two copies of letters, the original letters, as he said, 
having been returned to her ; but this she unequivocally and persistently de- 



<* 



70 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

nied. Two alterations had been made by some person in one of the fire 
original letters, such as to materially affect its meaning and its effect in the 
case. Elder Merrill claimed that the alterations were made before he re- 
ceived it, and that her averments were not correct in relation to one word 
erased. Her objections to the letters were raised the first time she heard 
them read, after going into his hands, and the alterations in the original let- 
ter were pointed out by her at that time. The alterations in the original 
letter known as letter No. 4, evidently constituted a key to the controversy. 
Could it have been shown that the word, " used," was under the blot era- 
sure, no question could have remained of his guilt j while, on the other hand , 
could it have been shown for a certainty, that the erased word was not the 
word, " used," the case would have gone as clearly in his favor. 

Mrs. Barrows and her husband, too, were willing to rest the question upon 
this point, a discovery of which might have been approximated by actual 
measurement, and by critical examination in other respects ; and possibly, 
the ingenuity of somebody might have developed the truth. But the letter 
containing this key was in Elder Merrill's possession. As we have before 
shown, he was bound by law and justice to preserve it. Were he innocent, 
it contained an element essential to his acquittal ; but, were he guilty, it 
contained the proof of his guilt, could it be divested of its covering. It was 
said that this letter, with the others, had been examined by good men and 
able judges. This we have never been disposed to dispute ; and yet, a dis- 
covery might have been made, at some future examination, and in the use of 
some means not employed by them, that would have convinced their minds 
as well as the minds of others. Many a negative decision in science as well 
as morals and law, has been reversed by new developments, resulting from 
inventive genius and close application. 

Not only, in our opinion, had the other party to this affair a right to re- 
quire the preservation of these letters, until every available test had been 
applied ; but as Elder Merrill stood before the public as a minister of the 
gospel and a guardian of public morals, the community had a right to re- 
quire it of him, and to hold him responsible for a betrayal of that trust. 

Did he preserve them 1 The answer is, he did not. He professed to be 
very careful of them. He refused his brethren, Morris and Deering, the 
privilege of examining them unless they would come to his study, where 
they would be prevented having any interchange of views, or making any 
suggestions to each other, that might lead to a closer scrutiny. 

But they were examined by the former council and by some of his strong 
personal friends, and then removed forever from public view or private inves- 
tigation. The last examination, except by Mr. Fenderson who copied a part 
of them, was said to have been by Rev. 0. W. Smith at Elder Merrill's study, 
as will be seen by referring to his testimony and our comments in connection. 
Hence we derived the following condensed view: 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM, P. MERRILL. 71 

Letters examined by the first council, Oct. 22d ; by Rev. 0. W. Smith, 
Nov. 1st ; copied by Eld. M. and Mr. Fenderson, Nov. 3d, and carried loose- 
ly in his pocket to Gray the same night ; burnt at the same place, Monday 
morning, Nov. 5th ; and then he fell back upon the testimony and decision 
of others for that protection which he had no right to ask, unless he could 
satisfy the council and the public that their loss was neither the result of 
gross carelessness nor fraudulent intent. In the first place, the prelusive 
steps to the loss of the letters carry a suspicious front. In the next place, 
their loss is inconsistent with his pretended caution in relation to their pres- 
ervation. A third objection consists in the loss being a contravention of the 
laws of nature ; and a fourth, in the discrepancies in his statements concern- 
ing the loss. In support of the point last noticed, you are referred to the 
testimony of himself, Rev. Dr. Dwight, and Mrs. Small. 

On the second general division of the impeaching testimony, we have be- 
fore endeavored to show you that it was not sach as to commend itself to our 
favor. It appeared to us among the greatest of absurdities, that a minister 
of the gospel should enter such language in a diary. We have given you 
as much of it as our views of propriety would allow ; and, had we inserted 
the whole, no doubt your better judgment would have put it away from pub- 
lic view. We would simply remark, that the reception of all the letters was 
noted in this " special diary," except Nos. 5 and 6. Why were they over- 
looked % Is it not remarkable that they made no impression upon his mind 
worthy of note or comment ? 

In relation to the third point, we have endeavored, with all due respect to 
the former council, and with deference to their justly merited reputation, to 
show you our reasons for not coinciding with their opinion. 

As it regards the fourth class of evidence, it is but frank to say, that we 
considered it a failure, so far as it was intended to impeach her evidence. 

He was allowed the greatest latitude in the cross-examination, in order to 
draw out every fact material to the case. Corresponding to this was the lib- 
erty allowed in the introduction of impeaching testimony. 

There are three general methods of impeaching a witness besides that of 
cross-examination. 1. By disproving the facts stated by him by the testi- 
mony of other witnesses. 2. By general evidence affecting his credit for 
veracity. 8. By proof that he has made statements out of court contrary 
to what he has testified at the trial. 

In this case no facts were disproved that had been alleged by the witness. 

Under the second head, although the accused was allowed to transcend 
the usages of courts of justice, still the witness stood unimpeached. The 
general, if not the universal rule, is, that the examination in such cases must 
be confined to the general reputation of the witness. And although he was 
allowed to ransack the community, to his full satisfaction, and to present in 
detail, every trivial circumstance, the council could not discover anything 
against the general reputation for truth. As it regards statements made be- 
fore the trial, we have no recollection that any former statements were con- 



72 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

tradicted, except in one or two instances at most, and they were fully ex- 
plained, and have been referred to in other places. 

But the position in which she frankly placed herself required that her tes^ 
timony should be supported by corroborating proof. The principal point 
that remains to be set before you, then, is the collateral proof of her state- 
ment. 

In the first place, it was shown by Elder Merrill's own admission, as well 
as by other testimony, that he was at Mr. Barrows' house on several of the 
times referred to by her, and that the circumstances attending these visits, 
aside from the allegations of crime, were such as she represented them. 

He did not deny being at Mr. Barrows' about the time of the Quarterly 
Meeting, in the Fall of 1857, as she asserted, neither did he deny borrowing 
the trunk of Mr. Gray, or returning it on his return home. The principal 
difference between them consisted in counter-charging each other. "While 
Mrs. B. accused him of the crimes alleged, he, in return, accused her of 
tempting him. It was shown that Elder Merrill was at the house of Mr. 
Barrows, and stopped one night while Mr. B. w r as in the country, as Mrs. B. 
stated in her testimony. 

Perhaps the introduction of further quotations from Mrs. B.'s testimony 
will be as appropriate at this time as at any other, as it will show the con- 
nection of circumstances with the question at issue. From her direct testi- 
mony, we select as follows : " Eld. Merrill did not call at our house but 
once for nearly four months after he came to my bed. When he came, my 
husband was sick. I left the room, because I felt disagreeable in view of 
the circumstance alluded to. It was in the same room, and, perhaps, three 
or four weeks after that affair. When I was coming from my sister's one 
evening, after he had staid away from our house some three months or more, 
at a prior time, he came up, and said, You don't think so much of me as I do 
of you. I replied, You can't think of me more than all the time. Another 
time, I was coming from evening meeting, and, as it was rainy, I walked un- 
der Eld. Merrill's umbrella, and he kissed me going down by Mr. Cobb's." 
She spoke of another visit, attended with improprieties on his part, when her 
husband and Rev. 0. B. Cheney were gone into the country to collect funds 
for the Maine State Seminary. She spoke of his approaching her with flat- 
teries, as follows : "At other times he brought some compliments to me 
from others, and praised me some himself. He said his wife and Mary 
Stearns said I was the handsomest woman they ever saw, for one of my age. 
At the Fair, at Augusta, he saw ladies riding, and said he thought of me. * 
* * * * 

When we met at Mr. Deering's, since this came out, Messrs. Morris and 
Deering stepped out, and I asked him why he did not forgive me, [i. e., for 
telling his hired girl her suspicions about him and others]. He replied, ' You 
cm stop it now.' I asked him how. He said. I could say I was mistaken. 
I answered, I cannot lie." ***** 



THE TRIAL OF REV WJI, P. MERRILL. <d 

TESTIMONY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

In answer to questions proposed by Eld. Merrill, Mrs. B. gave the follow- 
ing : * * * * * t: I looked after you. a good deal. I don't 
mean to say that I posted myself much any where. 1 posted myself on Cum- 
berland street — perhaps twice. I sat down in a house. I don't recollect 
that I did more. It might have been three times. I don't say what house. 
I once went into my sister's house, on Preble street — then I went to Mrs. 

Heath's, two or three times. It was next door to Mrs. M n's. Then I 

went to Mrs. Williams's once or twice. I stated to Mrs. Williams, there was 
a woman in great trouble about a friend. I now say it was myself. I did 
not tell her it was myself. I did not tell her for whom I was watching. I 
don't think I told her I was watching for a man that had a wife. I didn't 
tell her this man's wife was much worn down in consequence of his going 
after other women. I told her I pitied her. I would not say whether I de- 
signed to deceive her. I am not in the habit of calling people darling vil- 
lains. I think you are the only man I ever called so. * * * * 
I came down under your umbrella within the first year and a half of your 
being here. For the last year I have not been much in your company, I re- 
gret to say. I would rather remain friends. * * * I don't know 
to whom I complained first of your conduct. I went to Mr. Deering before 
I did to Mr. Morris. I spoke to Mr. Deering of being suspicious that Mr- 
Merrill was not what he ought to be. I told him Mr. Merrill ought to be 

brought up as well as Mr. Peck. I believe I named Mrs. M n, I don't 

know as I did. I think I did intimate that you went with other women be- 
sides Mrs. M n. I don't think I named any other one. I told them I 

had some circumstantial, and, I think, some other evidence, that you had 
been with other women besides myself. I did not tell Mr. Peering that Eld. 
Merrill had insulted me. I did not consider it an insult for him to come to 
my room, as we had been so familiar. I went to Mr. Deering because I 
thought it would kill my husband to know it. I thought he would go to 
Eld. Merrill, and it would be settled, or Eld. M. would go away. I think I 
called on Mr. D. twice. He advised me to tell my husband. I said I 
couldn't. I don't know as I said what my husband would do to me. * 
* * I have said I was revengeful, but I wouldn't revenge to injure. — 
I don't know as I ever said I would be revenged on you. I might say so in 
my first letters to you. * * * I say I have had two or three 
lovers since I was married, and Eld. Merrill was one of them. I have said I 
was not condemned before God, but I was before the world. This matter 
will drive me from my home, and what do I care about concealing the truth 1 
[At this time the witness burst into tears.] I had these two lovers before 
you came here. * * * I did say I foUowed you down into the 
entry one time, to tell you not to go to a bad house. You had been pressing 
me * * * at that time. I don't remember that I threatened 



74 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

to tell my husband of you. unless you confessed that you had been Avith that 
old slut. [I think I threatened to expose you. unless you confessed that 
you had lied. Afterwards, I said I was sorry, and asked you to forgive me.] 
I have charged you with meeting women in the city. I wrote to you, I 
think, that every time you went out of town, a certain lady was out of town 
also. I wrote to Dover, to know if you was there at a certain time. I think 
I have assigned as a reason for your staying away from me, that you had 
other women. I think so now. * * * I have given you to un- 
derstand that, if you would come and talk it over, we would be friends. * 

* * (I have said you looked very much used up.) If you had not 
destroyed my letters you would have known what was in them. I asked you 
once, when I was leaning in your arms, what made you act so like the d — 1. 

* * * I wrote you, think of the insulting way you have treated 
me, I believe." * * * 

Question, by Eld. Merrill. " Did you ever state in a letter to me, that 
I should leave the place, unless I confessed that I had been with other 
women 1" 

Answer. " I think T did not write it ; but I may have said it to you." 

Ques. " Did you ever say in a letter, if I could leave as well as you can, 
I would go 1" 

Ans. " I don't know but I did." 

Question. "Did you ever state in a letter that you felt ashamed to see 
meV 

Answer. " I don't recollect." 

Question. " Did you complain of your head, in a letter to me? " 

Answer. " I think it likely." 

Question. " Did you speak of running mad 1 " 

Answer. " I don't remember." 

Question. " Did you say I wanted you 1 " 

Answer. " I think I did, but I don't remember." 

Question. " Did you speak of dying for me 1 " 

Answer. " It was some such expression ; but I don't know certain." * * 

The following is taken from a further examination of Mrs. Barrows : 

" I have written to Mr. Merrill about many things that do not appear in 
my letters as he presents them here. I think I have written more letters 
than lie presents here." 

Question by Mr. Barrows. " Did or not you write to him criminating his 
motives in coming to our house 1 " 

Answer. " I did. I mean the time he came to my bed after he came 
from the mountains." * * * * 

Question. Did or not Elder Merrill ask you if you, at any time, thought 
of eloping 1 " 

Answer. " lie did ; and my replying in the negative, he replied that he 
never did." 



THE TRIAL OF REV, WM. P. MERRILL. 75 

Here the witness was asked if she would make oath, that she did not write 
the first two letters in the language of the copies as presented here. She re- 
plied that she would, and the oath was administered by Samuel Small, Esq. 

On being asked, what she meant by saying she could have enjoyed herself 
with many in the circle of her acquaintance, she replied : 

"I meant I could have enjoyed myself with many in social life, and [she 
jokingly said] kissing gentlemen." 

Question by Elder Merrill. " What did you mean by saying you had tried 
for a little pleasure in that way, when I was dying for you 1 " 

Answer. " I meant that I tried for pleasure in that way, when I kissed 
some, when I was dying for you. I did not enjoy anybody's society because 
I loved you — I am sorry to say it. I meant for social purposes." 

Referring to a conversation which she said occurred between her and Eld. 
M.j not proper to be inserted, she stated as follows : 

" We were standing in the parlor at that time, near the door that leads 
into the entry." 

Question by Mr. Barrows. " Have or not you had any other lover with 
whom you have trusted such secrets, and a multitude of other secrets 1 " 

Answer. " I have not. Elder Merrill told me to tell of it, and see how I 
would come out." 

Question. •'• Did or not Elder M. offer to get a carriage to carry you out, 
when he 1 " 

Answer. " He did." 

Question. " Why did you say you was sorry that you told it, when you 
told Mary Stearns 1 " 

Answer. " Because I saw what a dreadful thing it would be to have it come 
out," 

Question by Mr. Barrows. " Have or not I presented any motives to you 
to influence you to testify in this case other than truth and justice, and for 
the defense of others against his wiles ] " 

Answer. " That is what you have always argued — the motives for which 
you have desired me to testify." 

Question. " Have or not you said since the informal council at Bro. Mor- 
ris', that you had rather bear all the disgrace which he had heaped upon you 
by your letters, and in other ways, than to expose him ] " 

Answer. " I have said so." 

Question. " Did or not Elder Merrill say to you soon after he moved here, 
that you might treat him as coolly as you pleased at the circles 1 " 

Answer. "He did. At the time Mrs. Hobbs was here, before Elder Mer- 
rill moved here, he said if he did not move here, he should see me occasion- 
ally. In April, 1859, after he left his wife in Amesbury, he called on me. 
He sat down to the seraphine and called me to him ; he bent me down, and 
we kissed each other. He said he loved me and had thought much of me, 
and always should; but we must part— we must stop this. He left abruptly, 



76 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

saying he had shut Fred out doors. I suppose he did so because he found 
out I had written to Dr. Hill." 

On a subsequent examination, in reply to questions, Mrs. Barrows made 
the following statements : 

" Not long after I wrote the first letter to Elder Merrill, he requested me 
to write one, that he might show it to his wife. He said he told his wife the 
boys wrote him the letters." 

Here she requested the privilege of making a correction, a^s follows : 

" I think I saw Elder Merrill first at the time of the Quarterly Meeting in 
the Fall, instead of the Yearly Meeting, as I first stated. I do not remember 
of his giving me any religious advice except one time, when I was in his 
arms, he told me to hug and kiss my husband and to join the church." 

Rev. F. "W. Straight, a member of the council, asked Mrs. Barrows if she 
was in the habit of erasing and interlining. She replied that she wrote so 
little she hardly knew. 

During the closing examination of Mrs. Barrows, she presented a written 
statement regarding what she had written to Elder Merrill at different times, 
which she said he had suppressed ; a portion of which is inserted, as fol- 
lows : 

" I wrote upon these subjects: 1st. I told him he came here for the self- 
same purpose ; and that after * * * * the night he came to -my 
bed, he staid away four months. 

2nd. Referred to his leaving me three months at a time, because I would 
not comply with his wishes. 

3d. Did not want the matter to come out ; did not want him to go to 
State Prison ; feared I itfight go, too. 

4th. That the world is as large as ever, but not half so pleasant. 

5th. That he had driven me from the church, and communion ; and that 
my husband was not willing to hire a pew for me [in another church]. 

6th. Referred to lies he had told about me ; one about offering to get a 
carriage to take me out, and then denying it. Second, saying he was no^ 

acquainted with Mrs. M n, when I had abundance of evidence to the 

contrary." 

As the remaining statements involve others beside the parties in question, 
and as they are in no way material to the case, we omit to insert them. 

It is proper that we should notice, briefly, the evidence introduced in sup- 
port of Mrs. B.'s general reputation for truth; and perhaps it cannot be 
more briefly and clearly set before you, than by giving extracts from the 
testimony ; as follows : 

L. B. Dennett, Esq., said, " Mrs. Barrows' general reputation for truth 
is good. I had supposed until this matter came out, that she was a virtuous 
woman ; I never suspected but that she was so. I had no acquaintance with 
her previous to going there to board." 



THE TRIAL OF RET. WM. P. MERRILL. 77 

Mr. Samuel A. Knight. "I don't know as I ever heard anything 
against Mr. Barrows, or his wife, up to this affair. I left boarding with Mr. 
Barrows ten or twelve years ago." 

Mr. William Gray. " I have been acquainted with Mr. Barrows and 
his wife nearly three years. I consider both of them No. 1 for truth. I nev- 
er had any reason to think that Mrs. Barrows was not a virtuous woman, till 
this came out." 

Mr. Granville Fernald. "I have known Mrs. Barrows ever since I 
can remember ; and Mr. Barrows for twenty-five years. I know his reputa- 
tion for truth to be good ; and hers to be good, also. I never heard it 
questioned till since this affair. I have the most implicit confidence in her 
word. Her reputation for chastity was good, until this matter came out. I 
have to say from personal observation, that she has refrained from any con- 
versation or acts of an unchaste tendency." 

Mr. W. W. Knight. " The general reputation of Mr. Barrows and wife, 
for truth, is good, so far as I know. I have been acquainted with them two 
or three years. I never heard, knew, or mistrusted anything out of the way 
in Mrs. Barrows' character till this occurred. It is a fact that she is the last 
woman I should have thought of approaching, to tempt her chastity." 

Mr. Henry C. Thompson. '* I have boarded with Mr. Barrows and his 
wife, four years, next February. Their general reputation for truth is very 
good. I never had any suspicion of her chastity until this came up. I nev- 
er saw anything that would tend to produce suspicion in my mind. I have 
said, and I think yet, that I would place implicit reliance on her word." 

Mr. J. S. Smith. " I have been acquainted with Mr. Barrows and his 
wife for twenty years. I never heard anything against either of them for 
truth. My opinion in relation to Mrs. Barrows has always been that she 
was a chaste woman, till this matter came out." 

Miss Ably F. Phinney.* " For the last six years I have been very inti- 
mate with Mrs. Barrows. I always believed what she told me. I think 
truthfulness is a prominent trait in her character. I never saw anything in 
her before this, which would lead me to doubt her being a virtuous woman." 

Having briefly introduced the principal testimony concerning her general 
character, by which it was fully shown that no suspicion could rest against 
her, except the one fact of her being an accomplice in the crime ; and hav- 
ing shown that the circumstances were such throughout the whole transac- 
tion as to fix nearly all the probabilities in her favor, in our minds, — we 
cannot better illustrate our views regarding the question of her being an ac- 
complice, than by again referring you to " Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, 
p. 531, ty 379-80, from which we make the following extracts : 

* Daughter of the late Rev. Clement Phinney. 



78 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

" But it may here be observed, that it is a settled rule of evidence, that a 
particcps crvminis, notwithstanding the turpitude of his conduct, is not, on that 
account, an incompetent witness, so long as he remains not convicted and 
sentenced for an infamous crime. The admission of accomplices as witness- 
es for the government is justified by the necessity of the case ; it being of- 
ten impossible to bring the principal offenders to justice without them." 

" The degree of credit which ought to be given to the testimony of an ac- 
conrplice, is a matter exclusively within the province of the jury. It has 
sometimes been said that they ought not to believe him, unless his testimony 
is corroborated by other evidence ; and, without doubt, great caution in 
wei °hing such testimony, is dictated by prudence and good reason. But 
there is no such rule of law ; it being expressly conceded that the jury may, 
if they please, act upon the evidence of the accomplice, without any affirm- 
ation of his statement." 

Carefully reviewing and condensing the whole transaction, and giving, 
what appeared to us, due weight to the testimony and facts, three hypothe- 
ses were presented for our consideration ; viz. : 

First. That Mrs. Barrows made the assault upon Elder Merrill's fidelity 
without any provocation on his part; not " even a familiar word to lead to 
any such feeling ; " and that her apparent jealousy of him was but the ebul- 
lition of inordinate desire. 

Secondly. That Elder Merrill finding Mrs. Barrows to be frank, " sensi- 
ble of courtesy," and " fond of caresses," availed himself of her sociability 
and moral vincibility, and by the use of artful means, such as none could 
command but the experienced in crime, won her affections, and led her on to 
ruin. 

Thirdly. That they were both possessed of a " pliant virtue ; " and that 
their moral weakness was such as to present no sufficient barrier against even 
what might be termed slight influences to do wrong. 

We have given you clearly to understand that we could not find sufficient 
evidence to support the first of these propositions. It appeared to us alike in- 
consistent with the evidence, and with common experience. To our minds, 
every feature of the case carried too much suspicion in it, to admit of such 
a conclusion. The letters, in themselves, condemned it. The fact that Elder 
Merrill produced only copies from the first two letters, and those copies be- 
in°- declared erroneous by Mrs. Barrows ; the precaution to retain that slip 
and nothing more, when he should have preserved the letters ; the secrecy 
with which this affair was kept with reference to Mr. Barrows; the precau- 
tionary movements of Elder Merrill, in securing a strong influence in his fa- 
vor, and forestalling public opinion, by reading those letters extensively, and 
distorting and misrepresenting their original meaning, and by many other 
means of questionable propriety, as he saw the storm gathering ; the sin- 
gular and unaccountable destruction of the other original letters ; his singu- 
lar " diary," so contrary to sound discretion, and so derogatory to the char- 
acter of a Christian minister; the improbability, that a woman, hitherto 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 79 

sustaining a good reputation in society, would commence such an attack, 
and press it with such freedom and familiarity, without some improper ad- 
vances or reciprocal action on his part ; the appearance of the parties at 
the time of trial ; and almost every collateral circumstance, together with 
the strong proof of Mrs. Barrows' reputation for truth, — all combined to raise 
a barrier in our minds against the confirmation of this hypothesis. 

As regards the other two, it was an unavoidable conclusion, that if the 
first was not sustained, one of the others was both a moral and a legal cer- 
tainty. There were evidences enough of a flagrant wrong, and it must fall 
upon one or both of the parties. If it did not rest solely upon Mrs. Barrows, 
it did not appear to us a matter of much importance to Elder Merrill, wheth- 
er he was the sole aggressor, or only guilty of participating in the crime. In 
either case, the charge would be sufficient to ruin his reputation, and would 
require of us a verdict such as we submitted to the church in our former 
Report. 

Appended to this Report, you will find some important additional testimo- 
ny, to which your attention is respectfully invited. 

In conclusion, permit us to remark, that we have never expected to satis- 
fy those who were inflexibly committed to hold Elder Merrill innocent, for 
it is too generally true, that 

" A man convinced against his will, 
Is of the same opinion still." 

The council were arjprised in the early part of their labors, that they must 
acquit Elder Merrill, or their decision would be over-ruled. Strong efforts 
were made to enforce upon them the necessity of acquiescing in opinion 
with the former council. Cajolery and intimidation were alternately em- 
ployed. An opinion was made up for them, and reported in the streets. 
Although their session was not public, yet, the every-day street talk was, 
" They have not found anything against him, yet." The council were accost- 
ed on their way to and from their deliberations, with declarations, reported 
to come from prominent men, such as the following : " There has no evidence 
been introduced yet, that proves him guilty." " If they condemn him on 
such testimony as this, they will have to ride over me, too." The next 
morning after the council went to Gray, to examine into the burning of the 
letters, the street was gratuitously supplied with the information that they had 
" found nothing there against him." It may be said that this was " street 
talk.'' The council were aware of this, but they have no doubt it was set on 
foot for a certain purpose. It was unmistakably saying to them, You will 
be held up to public ridicule, if you do not clear him. 

But we have spoken out the honest convictions of our own minds, forced 
upon us by a careful and impartial investigation of the whole affair, as it 
came before us ; regretting as sincerely as any one, that we could not, con- 
scientiously, have decided otherwise. And, although it is impossible to trans- 



80 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

fer the whole of this affair to the pages of history, or to set it before you as 
it came to us, yet we do not hesitate to believe, that the publication of the 
whole testimony, and the circumstances, without note or comment, would 
satisfy an enlightened, and candid Christian public that our decision is well 
founded. And we fully believe that the Great Day of the Lord will show it 
to be a duty which the cause of Christianity required at our hands. 



TESTIMONY OF MR. RUFUS PEERING. 

PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL IN WRITING. 

" Saturday, June 30th, 1860. 

Mrs. Barrows came to my house — said she wished to have some conver- 
sation with me. I should think she was there about thirty minutes — said 
she did not wish me to communicate the matter to her husband. I asked 
her if she had told her husband of the matter. She said she had not. I 
told her that I had the utmost confidence in him, and she ought first to talk 
with him about it. 

She said it was in relation to immoral conduct of Mr. Merrill, and wished 
me to give her some advice. I told her I could not without a knowledge of 
the facts. She said Mr. Merrill had tried to get into bed with a woman in 
this city ; and she thought he had to do with a number. I told her, if the 
statement was true, and that was his character, the matter should be known. 
I asked her what the character of the woman was. She said it was good. — 
I asked her if she was truthful. She said she was. She wished me to con- 
verse with Mr. Morris about this matter. 

She said she would drop the matter, if I thought best. She did not mani- 
fest the least revenge or malice. 

I did not, at this time, discover what her motives were. I told her I 
would think the matter over, but could not give her any advice at this time, 
except to tell her husband. 

Second interview was two or three weeks from the first. She then called 
at my house, and wished to know if I had talked to Mr. Morris, and what 
decisions I had come to. I told her I had not mentioned the matter to any 
one. She said she felt very unpleasantly about the whole matter, and some- 
times wished she had not mentioned it to me. She spoke of the difficulty 
with Mr. Peck, and said he was no worse than other members of the church. 
I urged her very much to consent to let me talk with her husband. She 
wished to know if I thought Mr. Merrill would leave at the close of this 
year. I told her I could not tell, I was not a member of the Standing Com- 
mittee — that her husband was, and could tell, her more about that matter. — 
I told her I would see Mr. Morris, and inform her when we would meet her. 
I did so; and had the third interview at my house. Mr. Morris was pres- 



THE TRIAL OF EEY. WM. P. MERRILL. 81 

ent. She then said, that if we would inform Mr. Merrill of the complaint, 
the woman would be present, and state the facts. She said she believed Mr. 
Merrill to be a very bad man — was satisfied he went with other women be- 
sides his wife. 

After this interview, we had a number of others at different times. Twice 
when Mr. Merrill was present. I had an interview with Mr. Merrill and Mr. 
Morris at Mr. Morris's store. We told Mr. Merrill what Mrs. Barrows had 
said about him. He then told us of the letters, and said he would read them 
to us. I think he came to my house same night, or the next — am not sure 
which. It was immediately after the interview at Mr. Morris's store. I 
think he appeared in haste — was going away same night. He first read all 
of a lengthy memorandum, stating his feelings, the time and circumstances 
attending the reception of the letters. I felt some disappointed in hearing 
the notes first. It aroused suspicions in my mind that there was somethiug 
wrong on the part of Mr. Merrill. The language did not appear to me to be 
Mr. Merrill's natural language. I had never believed Mr. Merrill as devoted 
as some of the language in these notes represented him. 

I was present when the letters were first read to Mrs. Barrows. She ob- 
jected to the language as read. This reading was before she had seen the 
letters. At this time she resented it very much, particularly the phrase, ct I 
wanted." She then said she never wrote that — it was put in by some one 
besides herself. She did not object to other language which was as much 
against her as this. She had at all times pretended, that she believed Mr. 
Merrill would not deny the charge, when met by the woman, face to face. — 
I had, previous to this interview, been led to believe that she was the wom- 
an. She subsequently informed me of all the particulars, why she had dis- 
closed the affair. 

She first asked Mary Stearns if she had seen anything immoral in his con- 
duct, and then, afterward, learning that she had told Mr. Merrill and fami- 
ly, asked him to forgive her for telling Mary ; and when he refused, she 
then threatened an exposure, or revenge. She said Mr. Merrill wished her 
to sign a paper, acknowledging what she had said to be false. She said she 
returned it to him without being soiled by her hands. She said she had 
done many things wrong, and felt that she was ruined ; but she would not 
lie, if it would cover up the whole affair. 

Mr. Morris asked her how she could feel so delicate about lying, and yet 
not feel indignant and insulted at his conduct. She said she loved Mr. Mer- 
rill, and liked to have his company. She stated her disagreements with her 
husband, that he was not social, and they had not lived pleasantly together. 
She said she was social and desired to be caressed. 

A second meeting was agreed upon by Mr. Merrill, Mr. Morris, Mrs. Bar- 
rows, and myself, at my house. Just before the time of meeting, Mr. Mer- 
rill came to my house, and desired that we should meet at his study. We 
then endeavored to make a reconciliation ; but Mrs. Barrows asserted that 



82 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

what she had said was true. Mr. Merrill denied it. After being together 
some sixty minutes, Mrs. Barrows left. Mr. Merrill then said he wished to 
ask his wife into the room, and, at the same moment, went out, and called 
her. She came in. He then said he wished us, Mr. Morris and myself, to 
state our opinion of this affair. I felt much embarrassed, wishing not to in- 
jure Mrs. Merrill's feelings. I think I said I could not tell what to make of 
it — to me the circumstances appeared strange. I think Mr. Merrill asked if 
we did not think Mrs. Barrows insane. I remarked there was something very 
singular about the matter. When Mr. Merrill called his wife, Mr. Morris re- 
marked to me, that he was sorry, and thought it very imprudent — that we 
could not, at that time, say anything to help her feelings. I saw Mr. Morris 
the next day. He said he had said more in Mrs. Merrill's presence than his 
conscience would allow ; and that he should so tell Mr. Merrill the first op- 
portunity ; and wished me, if I saw him, to ask him to- call at his store. I 
said to Mr. Morris I did not feel satisfied with the examination of the letters ; 
and if he would come to my house, I would see Mr. Merrill, and get the let- 
ters, not doubting but what Mr. Merrill would be willing to trust them in 
our hands. I saw him, and said Mr. Morris and I wished to make a farther 
examination of the letters, and asked him if he would let us take them to my 
house, and look them over. He said he was not willing ; but if we would 
come to his study, we could there make what examination we pleased. I af- 
terwards informed Mr. Morris of the conversation. He replied that, if Mr. 
Merrill was unwilling to trust those letters in our hands, he should not go to his 
study to see them. He then said that every moment looked worse and 
worse. I subsequently urged Mr. Morris to see Mrs. Barrows alone, and get 
her statement in writing. I was satisfied there were other circumstances 
that might shed light upon 'this matter, and that, although a delicate affair, 
we should be more thorough in our examination with her. In all of her 
conversation with me, I have watched closely, to see if I could find some- 
thing contradictory, hoping that I might be able to detect the wrong where 
it existed ; and I must say I have not yet been able to detect the first con- 
tradiction in her statements. 

In her statements before the council, I can say, she has repeated many 
that she made to me, and sometimes used the same language. She has al- 
ways said she had no wish to injure Mr. Merrill. She spoke to me in rela- 
tion to seeing Mrs. Merrill, and talked as though she thought Mrs. Merrill 
would believe her. I advised her not to go near Mrs. Merrill. I told her it 
would only make unpleasant feelings, and only make the matter worse. I 
have not had any conversation with her sine© the first council met. 

[Signed.] RUFUS DEERING." 



THE TRIAL OP REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 83 

TESTIMONY OF MR. C. J. MORRIS. 

PEESENTED TO THE COUNCIL IN WHITING. 

" I did not at first attach any importance to the communication of Mrs. 
Barrows. Not that I doubted her truthfulness, but regarded it more in the 
light of a whim, and my first investigations were more in reference to satis- 
fying her, and keeping it from becoming public, than with any expectation 
of finding the charge sustained. My suspicions were first awakened at an 
interview with Eld. Merrill in his study (think it was the same day that Bro. 
Deering and myself informed him of the charge made by Mrs. Barrows), by 
his reading some records which he had made of his feelings at the time of 
receiving the several letters from Mrs. Barrows. He informed me that he 
did not keep a regular diary, and these records were made on separate 
pieces of paper, some of them quite small. They abounded with pious ex- 
pressions of trust in God — regrets that his wife's health was such that he 
could not communicate the facts to her, mixed with not very complimentary 
expressions in regard to Mrs. Barrows. 

What I know of the turn of mind of the writer, the nature of these rec- 
ords, and the manner in which they were kept, excited my suspicions. It 
seemed to me a very unnatural transaction. 

He proceeded to read the letters, explaining why copies of Nos. 1 and 2 
were read instead of the originals. In answer to the question how he satis- 
fied Mrs. Barrows by returning a letter from which he had cut a slip, he an- 
swered, that " she tore them up immediately, without making any examina- 
tion." This statement was repeated at the interview at Bro. Deering's, and 
before the former council. At this interview, after Mrs. Barrows' state- 
ment, Mr. Merrill proceeded to read the letters, stating that the first two 
were " copies." Mrs. Barrows asked why he read copies instead of the orig- 
inals ; he replied, that he had returned them to her, and she had " destroyed 
them." This she denied, and would not hear them read. At the close of 
this interview, which lasted two evenings, in answer to his request for a 
statement from us, showing that we had investigated the matter, and clear- 
ing him (unless we thought him guilty), we informed him that we had come 
to no conclusion, further than at that present time, it was best to keep it as 
close as possible. A few days after, called at Mr. Merrill's on business — 
said he wished to see me, as Mrs. Barrows had been there that afternoon. — 
She had been talking to his wife, and something must be done. Took me in 
his carriage — should think we rode an hour. The most of the time was 
spent in trying to convince me, that we had entertained charges, instead of a 
charge. I did not understand his object at that time, but adhered to the term 
charge. We went into his study. He showed me a confession, in which the 
term charges was used, which lie said he had shown to Mrs. Barrows, and 
thought she would sign it, if that would satisfy the members of the commit- 
tee, so that we could make a statement in connection with it. He asked if 



84 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

that would be satisfactory to me as an individual. I replied, that if Mrs. 
Barrows included the main charge in that confession, it would, otherwise it 
would not. Mr. Merrill started up, apparently quite excited, saying there 
was no other way but to have a council. I suggested submitting it to Elds, 
John Stevens and L. D. Strout. I think it was Friday. I promised to see 
Mrs. Barrows the next day, and then would be ready to see him as soon as 
it suited his convenience, and left with the understanding, on my part, that 
he was to call on Monday morning, (unless he left town on the Sabbath). I 
called on Mrs. Barrows the next day. I think it was at this time she ex- 
pressed regrets that she had ever mentioned the matter. I referred to the 
confession. She said Mr. Merrill presented her a written confession, stating 
that it was general in its character, and applied to the charges which she 

had made, that he went with Mrs. M n and other women, and that it 

would not implicate her in a falsehood in regard to the principal charge. — ■ 
She informed me that he pressed her very hard to sign the confession, but 
she was suspicious that the character of it was not what he represented it to 
be. While expressing regret at having mentioned the matter, she insisted 
upon the truth of the direct charge she had made. On Friday of the next 
week (the statements as to time are according to my best recollection), Eld. 
John Stevens and Mr. Merrill called at my store door. I told them I thought 
the church committee had better be called with the council. 

To this they assented. Mr. Merrill asked me to his house at 4 o'clock , 
P. M., to make arrangements for a council. Went at the time — found present, 
Messrs. John Stevens, L. D. Strout, W. C. Barrows, and Mr. Merrill. I do 
not remember any others. Mr. Merrill was commencing to read the letters. 
I interrupted the reading, stating my understanding of the purpose of our 
meeting to be, to arrange "for a council to investigate this matter. Merrill 
replied, in substance, that by reading the letters and a statement of the facts 
we might become satisfied that there was no foundation for the charges, and 
could so certify. I objected to this, stating that if we were to have an in- 
vestigation we should have both parties present. (Mrs. Barrows was at that 
time in Boston.) We then began to arrange for a council. Elders Stevens 
and Strout were agreed upon. Elder Stevens suggested Elder C. 0. Libby, 
— no objections. Mr. Merrill suggested Rev. Dr. Dwight — some objections 
were raised, but waived. The next Monday was assigned as the time, and 
the further arrangements left in this way : Elder John Stevens was to notify 
Elder C. 0. Libby; Elder Merrill was to obtain the services of Rev. Dr. 
Dwight if he could ; if not, he was at liberty to select any minister he saw fit, 
to fill his place. 

There appeared, as members of the council, Elders John Stevens, L. D. 
Strout, C. 0. Libby, and David Newell. There were six members of the 
church committee; viz., Bros. Deering, Barrows, Stevens, Fenderson, Rem- 
ick, and Morris. Bro. Barrows did not act. Elder Stevens was chosen 
chairman, and Elder L. D. Strout, clerk. There had been no action of tho 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 85 

committee, and two of the members, Bros. Stevens and Remick, did not 
know the purpose for which they met until the matter was presented to the 
council. The chairman of the committee informed the council that Mrs. 
Barrows had presented a charge against the moral character of Mr. Merrill, 
and they had been invited to investigate the matter. Mrs. Barrows was 
present, and made her statement. Mr. Merrill read his diary, and presented 
the letters. Mrs. Barrows, I think, did not return after the adjournment for 
tea. Mr. Merrill made something of an argument, and retired between eight 
and nine o'clock. After a general talk in regard to the matter, it was first 
submitted to the committee, who voted as follows : 

Not guilty, 3. 

Guilty, 1. 

Guilty to some extent — not fully decided, 1. 

Bro. Barrows not acting, 1. 

Number of committee present, 6. 

The council, after a lengthy discussion about the wording, one member 
not being willing to go as far as the others, agreed upon a report which has 
been presented to you. 

[Signed.] C. J. MORRIS." 



TESTIMONY OF REV. 0. W. SMITH. 

As Rev. 0. W. Smith's testimony has before been referred to, and to pass 
it in silence might be considered a defect, we now introduce its most essential 
features, as follows : 

Rev. W. 0. Smith. " At the time of the Quarterly Meeting at Casco 
[Oct. 31, 1860], I returned home, and named the affair to my wife. I came 
to the city Nov. 1st, Thursday. After putting up my horse, I called at the 
house of a member of this church with my wife. I inquired after Bro. Mer- 
rill, whether he was at home. They thought he was. I went immediately 
to Bro. Merrill's house, and found that he was absent, but would probably 
be in soon. I left word that I would be there at such an hour — I think 
about half past ten, A. M., and desired that he would wait till I came, if he 
came in before. I returned about the time appointed, and he came in in a 
very few minutes after. He expressed gladness on seeing me. I remarked 
to him I wished to have some conversation with him. "We went into his 
study. I made inquiry in reference to this matter. He stated that a council 
had been here. * * * Certain letters were brought forward. He did 
not say they were all present, and I did not inquire. We read them over to- 
gether. He called my attention to the interlining at this time, without dis- 
closing his intention at the time. He then inquired of me whether I detect- 
ed a different hand- writing— said, I want you to be particular. I didn't un- 
derstand why. I said there were certain words, both in the line3 and in the 



86 DECISION OP THE COUNCIL IN 

interlining, that resembled each other, differing from the main writing of the 
letter. I referred to the color of the ink and the penmanship. They were 
darker and heavier. After carefully examining these words, I came to the 
conclusion that it was by newly dipping the pen, or the point of the pen's 
gathering something from the surface of the paper ; or, it might have been 
occasioned by the pressure of the pen to make it shed the ink. I would 
further state that, from the form or shape of the letters, they resembled 
those that were more finely written. After a careful examination of all, I 
came to the conclusion, that they must have all been written by the same 
pen and the same hand. 

In reference to the position the words, ' I wanted,' occupied, I would say 
they were written directly over the erasure. I noticed that the sense of it 
would be materially changed if the word, ' used ' were placed in the erasure. 
After I had examined it, I was informed of the object of the examination." 

Here the witness testified in relation to being appointed on a council, which 
is not deemed important, and consequently omitted. The following testi- 
mony was given on cross-examination ; but, for the sake of brevity, the 
questions will be omitted : 

" I had no knowledge that I was on the council [a council appointed by 
the Ministers' Conference of the Cumberland Quarterly Meeting, but did not 
ast] before I visited Bro. Merrill. I made. up my opinion on the letter the 
day I examined it. I was satisfied as to the guilt or innocence of Bro. Mer- 
rill as far as I could be from hearing one side. I proposed to wait and meet 
the council according to the information you [Mr. Barrows] had given me of 
my appointment — i. e. the next day, Friday, Nov. 2d." 

Question by Mr. Barrows. " Did or not you come here the first of last 
week and claim to act on this council by virtue of the decision of the former 
council 1 " 

Answer. "I did come here and claim to be on this council by a decision 
of a former council, appointed by the Ministers' Conference. [Here the 
witness went into an explanation which is not recorded.] Bro. C. 0. Libby 
agreed to be one of this present council before he left." 

This last statement in regard to Rev. C. 0. Libby was disputed. It was 
alleged that he objected on the ground of having prejudged the case on a 
former hearing. 

On a subsequent examination, the witness made the following statements : 

" The erasure was narrow, perhaps a sixteenth of an inch wide. It might 
have been more — it was narrow and short — some three-fourths of an inch 
long— it might have been an eighth of an inch in width. The words, ' I 
wanted,' were placed directly over the erasure. If the word, ' used,' had 
been there, it would have read, ' used you to do.' I am as sure of that as I 
am of anything I. have said. I think there was a dash after one or both of 
the words referred to in the other place. The, word, 'wanted,' was on the line 
before the dash, on a line with it." 



V 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. ' ., . 87 

At another time the following statements were made by the witness : 
" I got the first information of this affair in the town of Falmouth, in 
August last, from Bro. Merrill. He presented the circumstances to ask ad- 
vice. He wished my advice, saying he had made it known to three others. 
He did not read the letters. I went to last Quarterly Meeting on Tuesday, 
Oct. 30. I could not sleep on the following night, because of Bro. Strout's 
representation. When Bro. Merrill presented the case, I had reason to sup- 
pose he was correct ; but when Bro. Strout presented it, he represented it as 
against Bro. Merrill." 

The foregoing testimony sustains our position on several important points. 

First. It showed that the examination of the letters by the witness was 
in the presence of no one but Elder Merrill ; and the witness only examined 
such as Elder M. produced. 

Secondly. It showed that the examination was had ten days after the sit- 
ting of the former council, and two days prior to the copying of the letters, 
and four days before they were burnt. 

Thirdly. It showed that he was made a confidential friend by Elder Mer- 
rill two months before Mr. Barrows knew about it, and more than two months 
before he made the examination. 

Fourthly. It showed him to have been in private consultation with Elder 
Merrill not only as far back as August, but again on the first day of Novem- 
ber ; and then, under the influence of his pre-formed opinions, he would have 
sat on a council to judge the case the next day, had that council gone into 
session. But, as it did not, he came forward on the 19th of Nov., and claim- 
ed a seat on another council, of which he never was a member. 

Fifthly. The discoveries made by him in relation to the alterations in let- 
ter No. 4 left room for many doubts whether he saw the original letter in 
the same form as it was seen by the other witnesses, as he differs somewhat 
essentially from them in some material points. 

There was one other essential point established by the testimony of this 
witness, and that is, the necessity of having the original letters before the 
council. "We cannot better give our views on this point, than by quoting 
from " Greenleaf on the Law of Evidence," vol 1, p. 127, sec. 88. as follows: 
r Oral evidence cannot be substituted for any writing, the existence of which is 
disputed, and which is material either to the issue between the parties, or to the 
credit of witnesses, and is not merely the memorandum of some other fact. 
For, by applying the rule to such cases, the Court acquires a knowledge of 
the whole contents of the instrument, which may have a different effect from 
the statement of a part. ' I have always,' said Lord Tenterden, f acted most 
strictly on the rule that what is in writing shall only be proved by the writing 
itself. My experience has taught me the extreme danger of relying on the 
recollection of witnesses, however honest, as to the contents of written in- 
struments ; they may be so easily mistaken, that I think the purposes of 



85 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL IN 

justice require the strict enforcement of the rule.' Thus, it is not allowed, 
on cross-examination, in the statement of a question to a witness, to repre- 
sent the contents of a letter, and to ask the witness whether he wrote a let- 
ter to any person with such contents, or contents to the like effect, without 
having first shown the letter to the witness and having asked him whether 
he wrote that letter." 

It is true, that when the written testimony is lost or destroyed by any un- 
avoidable accident, the alternative is to get the best testimony possible, but 
it must first be shown, to the satisfaction of the court, that it was unavoid - 
able. 



DIAGRAM OF THE ROOM IN WHICH ELDER MERRILL'S COAT 
WAS BURNED, NOV. 5th, 1860. 




1. Franklin stove. 3. 8. Hearth. 

4. Door opening into] the dining-room, and through which Elder Merrill 
passed when he left the room. 



THE TRIAL OF REV. WM. P. MERRILL. 89 

5. Denotes the place from which Elder Merrill thought he took the chair 
on which he hung the coat. 
G. Sofa. 7. Secretary. 

8. Door from front entry and chamber, through which Elder Merrill en- 
tered the room. 

9. Closet door. 10. Bed-room door. 

11. Chair on the fire, as Mrs. Merrill found it. 

12. Place where Elder Merrill's testimony would fix the chair, when he 
left it, 

18. Burnt coat spread out, right side up. 

11. 11. 11. 14. Burnt line ; all above this line was consumed. 

15. Place from which Mrs. Small thought Elder Merrill must have taken 
the chair, " or near that." 

16. Front door, leading to the street. 

18. Arrow, showing the direction of Mrs. Merrill's hand. (See page 46, 
for the testimony of Mrs. Merrill.) 

19. Place of the pocket, in which the letters were said to have been. 



In truth and sincerity, the foregoing is respectfully submitted, 

JOHN RAYMOND, 
OREN B. CHENEY, 
FREEBORN W. STRAIGHT, 
SAMUEL N. TUFTS, 
MOSES H. TARBOX. 

BownoiNHAM. Feb. 12. 1861. 



MAJORITY 

OF THE 
COUNCIL. 



ERRATA. 

Page 43, last word in the 9th line, for c < latter " read letter. 
Page -48, fifth line from the bottom, for " laying " read lying. 

Page 58 (in a small portion of the edition), sixth line from the bottom, for '-she also stated 
that she saw," etc., read, she also stated that she never saw, etc. 



90 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL. 



" Maine State Seminary, 

Lewiston, Feb. 23, 1861. 

To Samuel Small and others, the Minority of the F. W. Baptist Church, Port- 
land : 

Dear Brethren : — In accordance with your request, on the 12th of Feb. 
inst., the '■' Decision of the Council in the Trial of Rev. "W. P. Merrill" was 
placed in your hands, signed by four other members of said council, and 
myself. This much I did as a member of the council, from my own convic- 
tions of right, and under a sense of duty to you, considering the important 
relation you sustain to this sad affair. But being aware that you contem- 
plate publishing the " decision," etc., I feel under the necessity of informing 
you, that out of regard to the views of several of my brethren, Trustees of 
the Seminary, that I do not wish to be considered as co-operating in the 
publication, or as being responsible for such action. 

Sincerely yours, 
[Signed.] 0. B. CHENEY." 



TO THE PUBLIC. 



The undersigned, Minority of the F. W. Baptist Church, Portland, having ' 
been furnished, at our request, with the foregoing "Decision of the Council 
in the Trial of Rev. W. P. Merrill," etc., and also with the communication of 
Rev. 0. B. Cheney, relating to the same, deem it a duty which the cause of 
truth and righteousness requires, to give this decision, and the evidence and 
circumstances on which said decision was based, to the church and the 
world, through the press. 
[Signed.] 

SAMUEL SMALL, B. C. MEGQUIER, 

JOSEPH SYMONDS, C. J. MORRIS, 

WM. F. REMICK, AMOS C. YOUNG, 

RUFUS DEERING, G. A. MERRY, 

W. C. BARROWS, J. S. SMITH, 

JOSEPH W. MERRILL, ARCHIBALD SMITH. 



0* 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 899 325 4 



m 



m 

mm 







■■.:.: '■' 



